[libvirt] [PATCH 1/5] virDomainNumaGetNodeDistance: Fix input arguments validation

[John Ferlan]

On 11/22/2017 04:45 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 11/22/2017 12:22 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/14/2017 09:47 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> There's no point in checking if numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances
>>> is set if we check for numa->mem_nodes[node].distances. However,
>>> it makes sense to check if the sibling node caller passed falls
>>> within boundaries.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn at redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  src/conf/numa_conf.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/conf/numa_conf.c b/src/conf/numa_conf.c
>>> index 7bba4120b..5f0b3f9ed 100644
>>> --- a/src/conf/numa_conf.c
>>> +++ b/src/conf/numa_conf.c
>>> @@ -1154,7 +1154,7 @@ virDomainNumaGetNodeDistance(virDomainNumaPtr numa,
>>>       */
>>>      if (!distances ||
>>>          !distances[cellid].value ||
>>> -        !numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances)
>>> +        node >= numa->nmem_nodes)
>>
>> If @distances can only be set if "node < numa->nmem_nodes", then how
>> could "node >= numa->nmem_nodes" ever be true and @distances be non
>> NULL?  IOW: I see no need for the check... This former condition also
>> trips across my "favorite" condition check of "if !intValue"
>> substituting for "if intValue == 0" <sigh>.
> 
> Ah right. This patch makes no sense. I don't even know what was I
> thinking :-)
> 
> But now as I'm looking at the code, it might be worth to check if
> @cellid < numa->nmem_nodes; We check @node but not @cellid.

True, probably before we use it in distances too!  So flip/flop the
check and s/node/cellid/

John