From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C94DC54FB3 for ; Mon, 26 May 2025 15:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uJZxT-0001jz-FR; Mon, 26 May 2025 11:41:47 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uJZxD-0001aD-RI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2025 11:41:39 -0400 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de ([195.135.223.131]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uJZx9-0000oz-GS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 May 2025 11:41:29 -0400 Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF9601F793; Mon, 26 May 2025 15:41:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1748274085; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=54DQ8GLRLwDJCoTzR7hP5UC5ovQvIMqSOdT+v7wuRYk=; b=NmhegAKpfjBXWJZa/qI1NQ1+ltOvPwzRngGUuO2j3L6++uoYcAVD3o4f6gvqkwJm1jpVAg QT6sJQ9M7ISNGO/vEtKCkVSwTQ1YMgHhLpix4Q+I3nJiAPdZxSrWTv17+3zK0EExJd4CzX ZQ3UQe7PFuAQQppVY6J0vGLGDM4CsfE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1748274085; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=54DQ8GLRLwDJCoTzR7hP5UC5ovQvIMqSOdT+v7wuRYk=; b=IkWZCOIIYNZQaHz8vMT/b0spxx79w9YCtr4ta+/Wa+icEFzmG/qfMMK9//XYCiRRorTeJK qgNVElZB8TEy1sCw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1748274084; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=54DQ8GLRLwDJCoTzR7hP5UC5ovQvIMqSOdT+v7wuRYk=; b=bmXgKlar6lJHvAxNl7jSrlRPX2cHBG4/027AK2tRTTDgkWqXUAe9rcPf+aykij/+xhhc+S exnJeE3VKoomDujCg58cgQ6L4ln0O/RJvo9S8P1o7E4czVr1QYK1XwG1BfF9x+P+RlzNk8 RPh2zhnO2wWH4tlXMd8tF/gi5gPkcgk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1748274084; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=54DQ8GLRLwDJCoTzR7hP5UC5ovQvIMqSOdT+v7wuRYk=; b=C4OsWGUa80zfn2ZcqrAXhQiOWHW2PQowUQ2dMzdyFHe5rYmzXRFKC84dmwcxu5w8UJr5tw PycoycRaWouTRlBg== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47B861397F; Mon, 26 May 2025 15:41:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id UNnFAaSLNGhNZgAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Mon, 26 May 2025 15:41:24 +0000 From: Fabiano Rosas To: Peter Xu Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , =?utf-8?Q?Daniel_P_=2E_Berrang=C3=A9?= Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 04/13] migration: Fix parameter validation In-Reply-To: References: <20250411191443.22565-1-farosas@suse.de> <20250411191443.22565-5-farosas@suse.de> <87r00g61n5.fsf@suse.de> <87o6vk5yu3.fsf@suse.de> Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 12:41:21 -0300 Message-ID: <87bjrfv0pq.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.30 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.de:s=susede2_rsa,suse.de:s=susede2_ed25519]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.de:mid] Received-SPF: pass client-ip=195.135.223.131; envelope-from=farosas@suse.de; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Peter Xu writes: > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 02:39:48PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> Actually, this doesn't work... >> >> The migrate-set-* commands have optional fields, so we need some form of >> checking has_* to know which fields the user is setting. Otherwise >> MigrationSetParameters will have zeros all over that will trip the >> check. >> >> Then, we need some form of checking has_* to be able to enventually get >> the values into s->config (former s->parameters/capabilities), otherwise >> we'll overwrite the already-set values with the potentially empty ones >> coming from QAPI. >> >> Then there's also the issue of knowing whether a value is 0 because the >> user set it 0 or because it was never set. >> >> We also can't apply an invalid value to s->config and validate it after >> because some parameters are allowed to be changed during migration. > > What I meant was we only conditionally ignore the has_* fields in below: > > (1) migrate_params_check(), so that QEMU always checks all parameters in > the MigrationParameters* specified when invoking the function. > Yes, I realised later that's what you meant. I'm looking into it. Hitting some issues with the block_bitmap_mapping option, which seems to be able to become NULL even if has_block_bitmap_mapping is true. According to commit 3cba22c9ad ("migration: Fix block_bitmap_mapping migration"). > (2) MigrationState.parameters, so that as long as the parameters are > applied (it should only happen after sanity check all pass..) then we > ignore these has_* fields (until MigrationState.parameters can have a > better struct to not include these has_* fields). > > We can keep the has_* checks in migrate_params_test_apply() and > migrate_params_apply(), so that we won't touch the ones the user didn't > specify in the QMP commands as you said. > > The benefits of having above 1/2 ignoring has_* is some code removal where > we assume has_* always are TRUEs. > > This can be still a bit confusing, but at least we don't need to init has_* > fields in migrate_params_init() anymore as they'll be all ignored, then > there's no chance we forget set TRUEs to any new params either.