[libvirt] [PATCH 2/2] rpc: Fix segmentation fault when no worker pool is available

Daniel P. Berrangé berrange at redhat.com
Tue Jun 19 14:55:09 UTC 2018


On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 04:51:13PM +0200, Erik Skultety wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 09:47 AM +0200, Erik Skultety <eskultet at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 03:31:34PM +0200, Marc Hartmayer wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 01:39 PM +0200, Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >> > If srv->workers is a NULL pointer, as it is the case if there are no
> > >> > workers, then don't try to dereference it.
> > >> >
> > >> > Signed-off-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay at linux.ibm.com>
> > >> > Reviewed-by: Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy at linux.ibm.com>
> > >> > ---
> > >> >  src/rpc/virnetserver.c | 22 +++++++++++++++-------
> > >> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >> >
> > >> > diff --git a/src/rpc/virnetserver.c b/src/rpc/virnetserver.c
> > >> > index 5ae809e372..be6f610880 100644
> > >> > --- a/src/rpc/virnetserver.c
> > >> > +++ b/src/rpc/virnetserver.c
> > >> > @@ -933,13 +933,21 @@ virNetServerGetThreadPoolParameters(virNetServerPtr srv,
> > >> >                                      size_t *jobQueueDepth)
> > >> >  {
> > >> >      virObjectLock(srv);
> > >> > -
> > >> > -    *minWorkers = virThreadPoolGetMinWorkers(srv->workers);
> > >> > -    *maxWorkers = virThreadPoolGetMaxWorkers(srv->workers);
> > >> > -    *freeWorkers = virThreadPoolGetFreeWorkers(srv->workers);
> > >> > -    *nWorkers = virThreadPoolGetCurrentWorkers(srv->workers);
> > >> > -    *nPrioWorkers = virThreadPoolGetPriorityWorkers(srv->workers);
> > >> > -    *jobQueueDepth = virThreadPoolGetJobQueueDepth(srv->workers);
> > >> > +    if (srv->workers) {
> > >> > +        *minWorkers = virThreadPoolGetMinWorkers(srv->workers);
> > >> > +        *maxWorkers = virThreadPoolGetMaxWorkers(srv->workers);
> > >> > +        *freeWorkers = virThreadPoolGetFreeWorkers(srv->workers);
> > >> > +        *nWorkers = virThreadPoolGetCurrentWorkers(srv->workers);
> > >> > +        *nPrioWorkers = virThreadPoolGetPriorityWorkers(srv->workers);
> > >> > +        *jobQueueDepth = virThreadPoolGetJobQueueDepth(srv->workers);
> > >> > +    } else {
> > >> > +        *minWorkers = 0;
> > >> > +        *maxWorkers = 0;
> > >> > +        *freeWorkers = 0;
> > >> > +        *nWorkers = 0;
> > >> > +        *nPrioWorkers = 0;
> > >> > +        *jobQueueDepth = 0;
> > >> > +    }
> > >> >
> > >> >      virObjectUnlock(srv);
> > >> >      return 0;
> > >> > --
> > >> > 2.13.6
> > >>
> > >> After thinking again it probably makes more sense (and the code more
> > >> beautiful) to initialize the worker pool even for maxworker=0 (within
> > >
> > > I don't understand why should we do that.
> >
> > Because right now there are several functionalities broken. Segmentation
> > faults in virNetServerGet/SetThreadPoolParameters, it’s not possible to
> > start with maxworkers=0 and then change it at runtime via
> 
> Naturally, since no workers means noone to process the request, that is IMHO
> the expected behaviour.

Yes, a daemon should either run with no workers, or should run with
1 or more workers. It is not value to change between these two modes.

So if there's a codepath that lets you change from 0 -> 1 workers,
or the reverse, we should make sure that reports an error.

Essentially workers=0 is only intended for things like virtlockd
or virlogd which don't need to be multithreaded, or indeed must
*never* be multithreaded to avoid tickling kernel bugs like
virtlockd did in the past.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|




More information about the libvir-list mailing list