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 616DAC54E65 for ; Thu, 22 May 2025 17:40:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uI9td-0004r2-K7; Thu, 22 May 2025 13:39:57 -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 1uI9tb-0004qU-Fr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 May 2025 13:39:55 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.223.130]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uI9tZ-0007DG-Go for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 May 2025 13:39:55 -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-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C67F921B4D; Thu, 22 May 2025 17:39:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1747935591; 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=lhtJQHP3SZsACA2ri7Ky6yw4ifL7MswHbA1sEXlRsIo=; b=O1/wsQYTSerMFipt72F00U+iqGy9Yvkx5JmvEYB30SjcTSBrRlljYb3amY6hSOk75VrXwZ RbyXB7/hIpGu5BM6MZSa2syZbI4iNmThcm0Jn+Bcb/yB9Uc72LrL2GEJNwSDnBv+acWPBv Wm87+teH8WCHxUOBaOCixHuN9uK5NK4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1747935591; 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=lhtJQHP3SZsACA2ri7Ky6yw4ifL7MswHbA1sEXlRsIo=; b=bH544mwGnQ3yjYUCwVSDX+Lcg/+v1FtTHE+MRaunUkHTPqDfwh+8at+FEYWqVDMZhas0jr ItMGPy+q2ljP4eAQ== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1747935591; 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=lhtJQHP3SZsACA2ri7Ky6yw4ifL7MswHbA1sEXlRsIo=; b=O1/wsQYTSerMFipt72F00U+iqGy9Yvkx5JmvEYB30SjcTSBrRlljYb3amY6hSOk75VrXwZ RbyXB7/hIpGu5BM6MZSa2syZbI4iNmThcm0Jn+Bcb/yB9Uc72LrL2GEJNwSDnBv+acWPBv Wm87+teH8WCHxUOBaOCixHuN9uK5NK4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1747935591; 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=lhtJQHP3SZsACA2ri7Ky6yw4ifL7MswHbA1sEXlRsIo=; b=bH544mwGnQ3yjYUCwVSDX+Lcg/+v1FtTHE+MRaunUkHTPqDfwh+8at+FEYWqVDMZhas0jr ItMGPy+q2ljP4eAQ== 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 4004A13433; Thu, 22 May 2025 17:39:50 +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 3UN3O2ZhL2iHTQAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Thu, 22 May 2025 17:39:50 +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: <87r00g61n5.fsf@suse.de> References: <20250411191443.22565-1-farosas@suse.de> <20250411191443.22565-5-farosas@suse.de> <87r00g61n5.fsf@suse.de> Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 14:39:48 -0300 Message-ID: <87o6vk5yu3.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.29 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.19)[-0.969]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; 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]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4] Received-SPF: pass client-ip=195.135.223.130; envelope-from=farosas@suse.de; helo=smtp-out1.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_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_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 Fabiano Rosas writes: > Peter Xu writes: > >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 04:14:34PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >>> The migration parameters validation involves producing a temporary >>> structure which merges the current parameter values with the new >>> parameters set by the user. >>> >>> The has_ boolean fields of MigrateSetParameter are taken into >>> consideration when writing the temporary structure, however the copy >>> of the current parameters also copies all the has_ fields of >>> s->parameters and those are (almost) all true due to being initialized >>> by migrate_params_init(). >>> >>> Since the temporary structure copy does not carry over the has_ fields >>> from MigrateSetParameters, only the values which were initialized in >>> migrate_params_init() will end up being validated. This causes >>> (almost) all of the migration parameters to be validated again every >>> time a parameter is set, which could be considered a bug. But it also >>> skips validation of those values which are not set in >>> migrate_params_init(), which is a worse issue. >> >> IMHO it's ok to double check all parameters in slow path. Definitely not >> ok to skip them.. So now the question is, if migrate_params_test_apply() so >> far should check all params anyway... 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.