qemu-ppc
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] tests: Add a device_add/del HMP


From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH] tests: Add a device_add/del HMP test
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:13:21 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0

On 09.09.2017 22:41, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:59:32AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> On 05.09.2017 18:48, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
>>>> * Markus Armbruster (address@hidden) wrote:
>>>>> Thomas Huth <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> People tend to forget to mark internal devices with "user_creatable = 
>>>>>> false
>>>>>> or hotpluggable = false, and these devices can crash QEMU if added via 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> HMP monitor. So let's add a test to run through all devices and that 
>>>>>> tries
>>>>>> to add them blindly (without arguments) to see whether this could crash 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> QEMU instance.
[...]
>>>>> * The device supports only cold plug with -device, not hot plug with
>>>>>   device_add.
>>>
>>> We've got Eduardo's scripts/device-crash-test script for that already,
>>> so no need to cover that here.
>>
>> Point taken.  So this test is really about hot plug / unplug.  Suggest
>> to clarify the commit message: s/add them blindly/hotplug and unplug
>> them blindly/.
> 
> We could extend device-crash-test to test device_add too, as it
> already has extra code to deal with known crashes and testing
> multiple machine-types.  Also, any additional code we write to
> ensure we add mandatory arguments or plug only to valid buses
> would apply to both -device and device_add.  I also think Python
> test code is easier to maintain and extend, but that's just my
> personal preference.

Adding device_add/del support to device-crash-test is certainly an
option. The problem is that nobody runs it by default, so this won't
help to avoid that new problems are being committed to the repository.

I think we really should have a test for "make check", too. So would my
test be acceptable if I'd rewrite it to use QMP instead (I don't think I
could do the full list that Markus mentioned, but at least a basic test
via QMP as a start)?

>>>> If I'm reading the code right it's creating the device with the same
>>>> name as the device;  I wonder if that always works?
>>>
>>> Why not? The id is just an arbitrary string, isn't it?
>>
>> Since you're using HMP, you get to quote ',', which occurs in some
>> device names[*].  Enjoy!  ;-P
>>
>> Picking IDs that aren't anti-social may be easier.

I'm considering to fail the test if it detects a device with a ',' in
its name. Such devices should really not be there in QEMU...

 Thomas



reply via email to

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