On 01/21/2019 10:00 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
> Similar to what commit 86dba8f3 did for virPortAllocatorRelease,
> ignore port 0 in virPortAllocatorSetUsed.
>
> For all the reasonable use cases the callers already check that
> the port is non-zero, however if the port from the XML overflows
> unsigned short and turns into 0, it can be set as used by
> virPortAllocatorSetUsed but not released by virPortAllocatorRelease.
>
> Also skip port '0' in virPortAllocatorSetUsed to make this behavior
> symmetric.
>
> The serenity was disturbed by commit 5dbda5e9 which started using
> virPortAllocatorRelease instead of virPortAllocatorSetUsed (false).
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591645
>
> Signed-off-by: Ján Tomko <jtomko@redhat.com>
> ---
> src/util/virportallocator.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/util/virportallocator.c b/src/util/virportallocator.c
> index db95a601c7..d48963c1ff 100644
> --- a/src/util/virportallocator.c
> +++ b/src/util/virportallocator.c
> @@ -294,6 +294,9 @@ virPortAllocatorSetUsed(unsigned short port)
> if (!pa)
> return -1;
>
> + if (!port)
> + return 0;
> +
> virObjectLock(pa);
>
> if (virBitmapIsBitSet(pa->bitmap, port) ||
>
Reviewed-by: Cole Robinson <crobinso@redhat.com>
There's a portallocator unit test file but no direct tests for this
function unfortunately
- Cole
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list