[libvirt] [PATCHv5 3/5] domifaddr: Implement the API for qemu
Daniel P. Berrange
berrange at redhat.com
Mon Sep 2 11:49:00 UTC 2013
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 07:13:33PM +0530, Nehal J Wani wrote:
> +int
> +qemuAgentGetInterfaces(qemuAgentPtr mon,
> + virDomainInterfacePtr **ifaces)
> +{
> +
> + /* interface name is required to be presented */
> + name = virJSONValueObjectGetString(tmp_iface, "name");
> + if (!name) {
> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
> + _("qemu agent didn't provide 'name' field"));
> + goto error;
> + }
> +
> + /* Handle aliases of type <ifname>:<alias-name> */
> + ifname = virStringSplit(name, ":", 2);
> + ifname_s = ifname[0];
> +
> + iface = virHashLookup(ifaces_store, ifname_s);
> +
> + /* If the storage bag doesn't contain this iface, add it */
> + if (!iface) {
> + if (VIR_EXPAND_N(ifaces_ret, ifaces_count, 1) < 0)
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + if (VIR_ALLOC(ifaces_ret[ifaces_count - 1]) < 0)
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + if (virHashAddEntry(ifaces_store, ifname_s,
> + ifaces_ret[ifaces_count - 1]) < 0)
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + iface = ifaces_ret[ifaces_count - 1];
> + iface->naddrs = 0;
> +
> + if (VIR_STRDUP(iface->name, ifname_s) < 0)
> + goto error;
> +
> + /* hwaddr might be omitted */
Really ? Can qemu guest agent report interfacs with 'hardware-address'
field not being present ? I'd expect that field to be mandatory and
so report an error in libvirt if missing.
> + hwaddr = virJSONValueObjectGetString(tmp_iface, "hardware-address");
> + if (hwaddr && VIR_STRDUP(iface->hwaddr, hwaddr) < 0)
> + goto error;
> + }
> +
> + /* Has to be freed for each interface. */
> + virStringFreeList(ifname);
You're leaking 'ifname' if any of the 'goto xxxx' branches are
taken above.
> +
> + /* as well as IP address which - moreover -
> + * can be presented multiple times */
> + ip_addr_arr = virJSONValueObjectGet(tmp_iface, "ip-addresses");
> + if (!ip_addr_arr)
> + continue;
> +
> + if ((ip_addr_arr_size = virJSONValueArraySize(ip_addr_arr)) < 0)
> + /* Mmm, empty 'ip-address'? */
> + continue;
The '< 0' condition indicates an error scenario, so shouldn't be
silently ignored. '== 0' is the empty list scenario that is ok
to ignore, but already handled by the for() loop conditions.
> +
> + /* If current iface already exists, continue with the count */
> + addrs_count = iface->naddrs;
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < ip_addr_arr_size; j++) {
> +
> diff --git a/tests/qemuagenttest.c b/tests/qemuagenttest.c
> index 4e27981..4014a09 100644
> --- a/tests/qemuagenttest.c
> +++ b/tests/qemuagenttest.c
> @@ -576,6 +576,154 @@ cleanup:
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static const char testQemuAgentGetInterfacesResponse[] =
> + "{\"return\": "
> + " ["
> + " {\"name\":\"lo\","
> + " \"ip-addresses\":"
> + " ["
> + " {\"ip-address-type\":\"ipv4\","
> + " \"ip-address\":\"127.0.0.1\","
> + " \"prefix\":8"
> + " },"
> + " {\"ip-address-type\":\"ipv6\","
> + " \"ip-address\":\"::1\","
> + " \"prefix\":128"
> + " }"
> + " ],"
> + " \"hardware-address\":\"00:00:00:00:00:00\""
> + " },"
> + " {\"name\":\"eth0\","
> + " \"ip-addresses\":"
> + " ["
> + " {\"ip-address-type\":\"ipv4\","
> + " \"ip-address\":\"192.168.102.142\","
> + " \"prefix\":24"
> + " },"
> + " {\"ip-address-type\":\"ipv6\","
> + " \"ip-address\":\"fe80::5054:ff:fe89:ad35\","
> + " \"prefix\":64"
> + " },"
> + " {\"ip-address-type\":\"ipv4\","
> + " \"ip-address\":\"192.168.234.152\","
> + " \"prefix\":16"
> + " },"
> + " {\"ip-address-type\":\"ipv6\","
> + " \"ip-address\":\"fe80::5054:ff:fec3:68bb\","
> + " \"prefix\":64"
> + " }"
> + " ],"
> + " \"hardware-address\":\"52:54:00:89:ad:35\""
> + " },"
> + " {\"name\":\"eth1\","
> + " \"ip-addresses\":"
> + " ["
> + " {\"ip-address-type\":\"ipv4\","
> + " \"ip-address\":\"192.168.103.83\","
> + " \"prefix\":24"
> + " },"
> + " {\"ip-address-type\":\"ipv6\","
> + " \"ip-address\":\"fe80::5054:ff:fed3:39ee\","
> + " \"prefix\":64"
> + " }"
> + " ],"
> + " \"hardware-address\":\"52:54:00:d3:39:ee\""
> + " },"
> + " {\"name\":\"eth1:0\","
> + " \"ip-addresses\":"
> + " ["
> + " {\"ip-address-type\":\"ipv4\","
> + " \"ip-address\":\"192.168.10.91\","
> + " \"prefix\":24"
> + " },"
> + " {\"ip-address-type\":\"ipv6\","
> + " \"ip-address\":\"fe80::fc54:ff:fefe:4c4f\","
> + " \"prefix\":64"
> + " }"
> + " ],"
> + " \"hardware-address\":\"52:54:00:d3:39:ee\""
> + " },"
> + " {\"name\":\"eth2\","
> + " \"hardware-address\":\"52:54:00:36:2a:e5\""
> + " }"
> + " ]"
> + "}";
I'd re-arrange these a little, eg so that 'eth2' comes
before 'eth1:1', just so that we validate that we're
coping with things in a non-obvious sort order.
> +
> +static int
> +testQemuAgentGetInterfaces(const void *data)
> +{
> + virDomainXMLOptionPtr xmlopt = (virDomainXMLOptionPtr)data;
> + qemuMonitorTestPtr test = qemuMonitorTestNewAgent(xmlopt);
> + size_t i;
> + int ret = -1;
> + int ifaces_count = 0;
> + virDomainInterfacePtr *ifaces = NULL;
> +
> + if (!test)
> + return -1;
> +
> + if (qemuMonitorTestAddAgentSyncResponse(test) < 0)
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + if (qemuMonitorTestAddItem(test, "guest-network-get-interfaces",
> + testQemuAgentGetInterfacesResponse) < 0)
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + if ((ifaces_count = qemuAgentGetInterfaces(qemuMonitorTestGetAgent(test),
> + &ifaces)) < 0)
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + if (ifaces_count != 4) {
> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
> + "expected 4 interfaces, got %d", ret);
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> +
> + if (ifaces[0]->naddrs != 2 ||
> + ifaces[1]->naddrs != 4 ||
> + ifaces[2]->naddrs != 4 ||
> + ifaces[3]->naddrs != 0) {
> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
> + "unexpected return value for number of IP addresses");
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> +
> + if (STRNEQ(ifaces[0]->name, "lo") ||
> + STRNEQ(ifaces[0]->addrs[0].addr, "127.0.0.1") ||
> + ifaces[0]->addrs[1].prefix != 128) {
> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
> + "unexpected return values for interface: lo");
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> +
> + if (STRNEQ(ifaces[1]->hwaddr, "52:54:00:89:ad:35") ||
> + ifaces[1]->addrs[0].prefix != 24 ||
> + ifaces[1]->addrs[1].type != VIR_IP_ADDR_TYPE_IPV6) {
> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
> + "unexpected return values for interface: eth0");
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> +
> + if (STRNEQ(ifaces[2]->name, "eth1") ||
> + ifaces[2]->addrs[0].type != VIR_IP_ADDR_TYPE_IPV4 ||
> + STRNEQ(ifaces[2]->addrs[1].addr, "fe80::5054:ff:fed3:39ee")) {
> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
> + "unexpected return values for interface: eth1");
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
You're only validating a couple of the IP addresses here & MAC addrs
and names. I'd like to see all of them validated for all NIC. This
would give us higher confidence that we're correctly merging eth1
and eth1:0 together.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list