[libvirt PATCH] qemu: Fix domain ID allocation
mprivozn at redhat.com
Fri Jan 31 15:55:41 UTC 2020
On 1/31/20 4:45 PM, Ján Tomko wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 04:33:50PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> On 1/31/20 3:43 PM, Ján Tomko wrote:
>>> The rewrite to use GLib's atomic ops functions changed the behavior
>>> of virAtomicIntInc - before it returned the pre-increment value.
>>> Most of the callers using its value were adjusted, but the one
>>> in qemuDriverAllocateID was not. If libvirtd would reconnect to
>>> a running domain during startup, the next started domain would get
>>> the same ID:
>>> $ virsh list
>>> Id Name State
>>> 1 f28live running
>>> 1 f28live1 running
>>> Use the g_atomic_add function directly (as recommended in viratomic.h)
>>> and add 1 to the result.
>>> This also restores the usual numbering from 1 instead of 0.
>>> Signed-off-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko at redhat.com>
>>> Fixes: 7b9645a7d127a374b8d1c83fdf9789706dbab2c9
>>> src/qemu/qemu_conf.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c b/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
>>> index e5051027fc..0b119cbe78 100644
>>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
>>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_conf.c
>>> @@ -1858,7 +1858,7 @@ qemuSetUnprivSGIO(virDomainDeviceDefPtr dev)
>>> int qemuDriverAllocateID(virQEMUDriverPtr driver)
>>> - return virAtomicIntInc(&driver->lastvmid);
>>> + return g_atomic_int_add(&driver->lastvmid, 1) + 1;
>> Does it makes sense to replace all virAtomic with g_atomic or do we
> That does make sense. It is encouraged in viratomic.h, as I said in the
> commit message. The reason I did not cleanup all of them is the bugfix
> nature of this patch.
Aha! So we are already doing that. From our src/util/viratomic.h:
#define virAtomicIntInc(i) g_atomic_int_add(i, 1)
So all we need to do is just drop viratomic.
More information about the libvir-list