[libvirt] [PATCH] virsh: report error if vcpu number exceed the guest maxvcpu number

[John Ferlan]

On 07/02/2015 05:46 AM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:

...

>>
>> diff --git a/tools/virsh-domain.c b/tools/virsh-domain.c
>> index 27d62e9..334fd3a 100644
>> --- a/tools/virsh-domain.c
>> +++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c
>> @@ -6497,6 +6497,19 @@ cmdVcpuPin(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd)
>>               goto cleanup;
>>           }
>>
>> +        if (got_vcpu && vcpu >= ncpus) {
>> +            if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_LIVE ||
>> +                (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CURRENT && 
>> virDomainIsActive(dom) == 1))
>> +                vshError(ctl,
>> +                         _("vcpu %d is out of range of live cpu count %d"),
>> +                         vcpu, ncpus);
>> +            else
>> +                vshError(ctl,
>> +                         _("vcpu %d is out of range of persistent cpu 
>> count %d"),
>> +                         vcpu, ncpus);
>> +            goto cleanup;
>> +        }
>> +
>>           cpumaplen = VIR_CPU_MAPLEN(maxcpu);
>>           cpumap = vshMalloc(ctl, ncpus * cpumaplen);
>>           if ((ncpus = virDomainGetVcpuPinInfo(dom, ncpus, cpumap,
>>
> 
> This modification is much better and correspond to the error messages while
> setting the vcpu pinning.
> 

I just pushed this now - it'd need a bz for a backport (ahem) since
1.2.17 was cut before the push...


commit 848ab685f74afae102e265108518095942ecb293
Author: Luyao Huang <lhuang at redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Jun 29 10:10:15 2015 +0800

    virsh: report error if vcpu number exceed the guest maxvcpu number

John
>>>
>>> Before I make that change for you - hopefully Pavel can take a look as
>>> well to be sure I haven't missed something.
>>>
>>> With any luck we this could be addressed before the 1.2.17 release, but
>>> if not since it's been a regression since 1.2.13 and no one's noticed,
>>> then another release probably won't hurt.
>>
>> Right, if we can fix it in 1.2.17, it will be better :)
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your help and review.
>>
> 
> ACK to the patch than John updated and proposed.
>