On 05.10.2015 10:56, Peter Krempa wrote:

Our docs state that subelements of <metadata> shall have a namespace and the medatata APIs expect that too. To avoid inaccessible <metadata> sub-elements, just remove those that don't conform to the documentation.

Apart from adding the new condition this patch renames the function and refactors the code flow to allow the changes.

Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245525 --- src/conf/domain_conf.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c index 29e55f2..65e0d8e 100644 --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c @@ -3688,27 +3688,40 @@ virDomainDefRejectDuplicateControllers(virDomainDefPtr def)

/** - * virDomainDefRemoveDuplicateMetadata: - * @def: Remove duplicate metadata for this def + * virDomainDefMetadataSanitize: + * @def: Sanitize metadata for this def * * This function removes metadata elements in @def that share the namespace. - * The first metadata entry of every duplicate namespace is kept. + * The first metadata entry of every duplicate namespace is kept. Additionally + * elements with no namespace are deleted. */ static void -virDomainDefRemoveDuplicateMetadata(virDomainDefPtr def) +virDomainDefMetadataSanitize(virDomainDefPtr def) { xmlNodePtr child; xmlNodePtr next; + xmlNodePtr dupl;

if (!def || !def->metadata) return;

- for (child = def->metadata->children; child; child = child->next) { + child = def->metadata->children; + while (child) { + /* remove metadata entries that don't have any namespace at all */ + if (!child->ns || !child->ns->href) { + dupl = child; + child = child->next; + + xmlUnlinkNode(dupl); + xmlFreeNode(dupl); + continue; + } + /* check that every other child of @root doesn't share the namespace of * the current one and delete them possibly */ next = child->next; while (next) { - xmlNodePtr dupl = NULL; + dupl = NULL;

if (child->ns && next->ns && STREQ_NULLABLE((const char *) child->ns->href, @@ -3722,6 +3735,8 @@ virDomainDefRemoveDuplicateMetadata(virDomainDefPtr def) xmlFreeNode(dupl); } } + + child = child->next; } }

@@ -3956,7 +3971,7 @@ virDomainDefPostParseInternal(virDomainDefPtr def, }

/* clean up possibly duplicated metadata entries */ - virDomainDefRemoveDuplicateMetadata(def); + virDomainDefMetadataSanitize(def);

return 0; }

ACK, but minding adding a simple test case? Michal