qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] virtio-rng: Add human-readable error message


From: Amit Shah
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] virtio-rng: Add human-readable error message for negative max-bytes parameter
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:57:30 +0530

On (Fri) 18 Jul 2014 [13:15:18], Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Amit Shah <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > On (Fri) 18 Jul 2014 [08:27:59], Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> John Snow <address@hidden> writes:
> >> 
> >> > If a negative integer is used for the max_bytes parameter, QEMU currently
> >> > calls abort() and leaves behind a core dump. This patch adds a simple
> >> > error message to make the reason for the termination clearer.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: John Snow <address@hidden>
> >> > ---
> >> > v2: Changed 0L constant to (uint64_t)0 constant to match PRId64 format 
> >> > code
> >> >     on both 32bit and 64bit systems. Tested via -m32 flag.
> >> >
> >> >  hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c | 6 +++++-
> >> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c
> >> > index 1356aca..64c7d23 100644
> >> > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c
> >> > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c
> >> > @@ -181,7 +181,11 @@ static void virtio_rng_device_realize(DeviceState 
> >> > *dev, Error **errp)
> >> >  
> >> >      vrng->vq = virtio_add_queue(vdev, 8, handle_input);
> >> >  
> >> > -    assert(vrng->conf.max_bytes <= INT64_MAX);
> >> > +    if (vrng->conf.max_bytes > INT64_MAX) {
> >> > +        error_set(errp, QERR_PROPERTY_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE, "virtio-rng",
> >> > +                  "max_bytes", vrng->conf.max_bytes, (uint64_t)0, 
> >> > INT64_MAX);
> >> > +        return;
> >> > +    }
> >> >      vrng->quota_remaining = vrng->conf.max_bytes;
> >> >  
> >> >      vrng->rate_limit_timer = timer_new_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,
> >> 
> >> Elsewhere in this function, we use
> >> 
> >>         error_set(errp, QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE, "period",
> >>                   "a positive number");
> >> 
> >> Existing uses of QERR_PROPERTY_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE are all for intervals
> >> with small bounds.
> >
> > That's suggestion for a 2.2 patch, right?
> 
> This *is* a 2.2 patch, isn't it?

This one I proposed for 2.1 (because a device hotplug could cause qemu
to abort).

> > Do you think the usage as in this patch is fine?
> 
> It's not wrong, just inconsistent with existing usage.  I'd prefer
> consistency.

Right.  Which one do you prefer -- both using
QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE, or QERR_PROPERTY_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE?  I
prefer the latter.


                Amit



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]