[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 01/19] libxl_migration: Resolve Coverity NULL_RETURNS



John Ferlan wrote:
> On 08/27/2014 05:29 PM, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>   
>> John Ferlan wrote:
>>     
>>> Coverity noted that all callers to libxlDomainEventQueue() could ensure
>>> the second parameter (event) was true before calling except this case.
>>> As I look at the code and how events are used - it seems that prior to
>>> generating an event for the dom == NULL condition, the resume/suspend
>>> event should be queue'd after the virDomainSaveStatus() call which will
>>> goto cleanup and queue the saved event anyway.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan redhat com>
>>> ---
>>>  src/libxl/libxl_migration.c | 6 +++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/libxl/libxl_migration.c b/src/libxl/libxl_migration.c
>>> index dbb5a8f..53ae63a 100644
>>> --- a/src/libxl/libxl_migration.c
>>> +++ b/src/libxl/libxl_migration.c
>>> @@ -512,6 +512,11 @@ libxlDomainMigrationFinish(virConnectPtr dconn,
>>>      if (virDomainSaveStatus(driver->xmlopt, cfg->stateDir, vm) < 0)
>>>          goto cleanup;
>>>  
>>> +    if (event) {
>>> +        libxlDomainEventQueue(driver, event);
>>> +        event = NULL;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>>      dom = virGetDomain(dconn, vm->def->name, vm->def->uuid);
>>>  
>>>      if (dom == NULL) {
>>> @@ -519,7 +524,6 @@ libxlDomainMigrationFinish(virConnectPtr dconn,
>>>          libxlDomainCleanup(driver, vm, VIR_DOMAIN_SHUTOFF_FAILED);
>>>          event = virDomainEventLifecycleNewFromObj(vm, VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_STOPPED,
>>>                                           VIR_DOMAIN_EVENT_STOPPED_FAILED);
>>> -        libxlDomainEventQueue(driver, event);
>>>      }
>>>   
>>>       
>> See my question in your first series about whether the dom == NULL check
>> is even needed.  If not, I can send a patch to remove the check, in
>> which case this patch wouldn't be needed.
>>
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2014-August/msg01399.html
>>
>>
>>     
>
> I am going to remove this one from my series and let you handle it.
>   

After looking at the code again, I think it is safest to go with your patch.

> I would seem perhaps that the code was there to ensure that if either of
> the calls to virDomainObjSetState() ended up resulting in 'dom' not
> returning something from the virGetDomain(), then like perhaps the qemu
> migration code, the "best choice" was to remove it.

Yep, agreed.  I haven't convinced myself that it is impossible for
virGetDomain() to return a NULL domainPtr, but in the event it does I
agree it is best to remove the domain.

Regards,
Jim


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]