On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:25 PM +0100, Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 01:45:32PM +0100, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
The comment was actually wrong as https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/udev_new.html mentions that on failure NULL is returned.
Signed-off-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Bjoern Walk <bwalk@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- src/node_device/node_device_udev.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c b/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c index 4b81312..4b0a875 100644 --- a/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c +++ b/src/node_device/node_device_udev.c @@ -1491,13 +1491,11 @@ static int nodeStateInitialize(bool privileged, if (udevPCITranslateInit(privileged) < 0) goto cleanup;
- /* - * http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/hotplug/libudev/libudev-udev.ht... - * - * indicates no return value other than success, so we don't check - * its return value. - */ udev = udev_new(); + if (!udev) { + virReportOOMError(); + goto cleanup; + }
Is that true for other udevs and not just systemd-udev?
I'm not sure about other versions of udev but the NULL pointer is already handled in udevStatInitialize() for udev_new() in a likewise manner.
Does it really mean just an OOM error?
It fails for systemd-udev if malloc/calloc fails => this is most likely a OOM error at this point.
Couldn't we add a proper error message?
In udevStateInitialize() the error handling reports an internal error but as the original error is caused by OOM I think we have to use virReportOOMError(). -- Beste Grüße / Kind regards Marc Hartmayer IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294