[PATCH] report error when virProcessGetStatInfo() is unable to parse data

[Michal Prívozník]

On 1/7/22 12:55, Ani Sinha wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> 
>> On 1/7/22 10:09, Ani Sinha wrote:
>>> Currently virProcessGetStatInfo() always returns success and only logs error
>>> when it is unable to parse the data. Make this function actually report the
>>> error and return a negative value in this error scenario.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ani Sinha <ani at anisinha.ca>
>>> ---
>>>  src/util/virprocess.c | 6 +++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/util/virprocess.c b/src/util/virprocess.c
>>> index c74bd16fe6..b9f498d5d8 100644
>>> --- a/src/util/virprocess.c
>>> +++ b/src/util/virprocess.c
>>> @@ -1783,7 +1783,11 @@ virProcessGetStatInfo(unsigned long long *cpuTime,
>>>          virStrToLong_ullp(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_STIME], NULL, 10, &systime) < 0 ||
>>>          virStrToLong_l(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_RSS], NULL, 10, &rss) < 0 ||
>>>          virStrToLong_i(proc_stat[VIR_PROCESS_STAT_PROCESSOR], NULL, 10, &cpu) < 0) {
>>> -        VIR_WARN("cannot parse process status data");
>>> +        virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
>>> +                       _("cannot parse process status data for pid '%d/%d'"),
>>> +                       (int) pid, (int) tid);
>>> +
>>> +        return -1;
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      /* We got jiffies
>>
>> Couple of problems with this patch as is. I'm not against the idea of
>> reporting an error here.
> 
> Good. now we are moving in the right direction.
> 
> But couple of things needs to be addressed first:
>>
>> 1) Currently, all callers check for retval and report an error if -1 was
>> returned. This means, that even though this new message is reported it
>> is immediately overwritten in caller.
> 
> Let me fix the callers and send an updated patch. Meanwhile ...
> 
>>
>> 2) The non-linux implementation now has to report error too. I believe
>> it's obvious why from our previous discussion this morning.
> 
> Maybe you can fix your patch.

There is nothing to fix. With current master nor Linux nor non-Linux
variant reports any error, i.e. are consistent. This patch introduced
inconsistency and in my review I have pointed it out. Looking forward to v2.

Michal