[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio: abort on fatal error instead of just ex
From: |
Igor Mammedov |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] virtio: abort on fatal error instead of just exiting |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Jun 2016 08:55:05 +0200 |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 07:12:08 +0200
Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> Igor Mammedov <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:49:59 +0200
> > Markus Armbruster <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >> Igor Mammedov <address@hidden> writes:
> >>
> >> > replace mainly useless exit(1) on fatal error path with
> >> > abort(), so that it would be possible to generate core
> >> > dump, that could be used to analyse cause of problem.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>
> >> > ---
> >> > hw/virtio/virtio.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> >> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > index 7ed06ea..9d3ac72 100644
> >> > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int virtqueue_num_heads(VirtQueue *vq,
> >> > unsigned int idx) if (num_heads > vq->vring.num) {
> >> > error_report("Guest moved used index from %u to %u",
> >> > idx, vq->shadow_avail_idx);
> >> > - exit(1);
> >> > + abort();
> >>
> >> What's wrong with a simple assert(num_heads <= vq->vring.num)?
> > Nothing, it should work to as we don't use NDEBUG.
> > My intent was to make core dump at the point and no to remove
> > error message
> > (though message's mostly useless for me as virtio is unfamiliar to me
> > and I had to dig into core dump to analyze issue).
>
> Understand.
>
> The solution we really want is of course putting the device in an error
> state, where it stays until reset.
As Cornelia has mentioned earlier, there is/were a series on list for it,
aborting is just an interim step until those patches are ready.