qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [for-2.9 2/8] char: Fix socket with "type": "vsock" add


From: Marc-André Lureau
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [for-2.9 2/8] char: Fix socket with "type": "vsock" address
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:48:43 -0400 (EDT)

Hi

----- Original Message -----
> Watch this:
> 
>     $ qemu-system-x86_64 -nodefaults -S -display none -qmp stdio
>     {"QMP": {"version": {"qemu": {"micro": 91, "minor": 8, "major": 2},
>     "package": " (v2.8.0-1195-gf84141e-dirty)"}, "capabilities": []}}
>     { "execute": "qmp_capabilities" }
>     {"return": {}}
>     { "execute": "chardev-add", "arguments": { "id": "chr0", "backend": {
>     "type": "socket", "data": { "addr": { "type": "vsock", "data": { "cid":
>     "CID", "port": "P" }}}}}}
>     Aborted (core dumped)
> 
> Crashes because SocketAddress_to_str() is blissfully unaware of
> SOCKET_ADDRESS_KIND_VSOCK.  Fix that.  Pick the output format to match
> socket_parse(), just like the existing formats.
> 
> Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <address@hidden>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
> Cc: Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>

Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden>

> ---
>  chardev/char-socket.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/chardev/char-socket.c b/chardev/char-socket.c
> index 6344b07..36ab0d6 100644
> --- a/chardev/char-socket.c
> +++ b/chardev/char-socket.c
> @@ -357,6 +357,10 @@ static char *SocketAddress_to_str(const char *prefix,
> SocketAddress *addr,
>          return g_strdup_printf("%sfd:%s%s", prefix, addr->u.fd.data->str,
>                                 is_listen ? ",server" : "");
>          break;
> +    case SOCKET_ADDRESS_KIND_VSOCK:
> +        return g_strdup_printf("%svsock:%s:%s", prefix,
> +                               addr->u.vsock.data->cid,
> +                               addr->u.vsock.data->port);
>      default:
>          abort();

ooch.. may I suggest we don't abort() here? g_return_val_if_fail() perhaps a 
more judicious choice?



reply via email to

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