Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com> writes:

On (Fri) 18 Jul 2014 [13:54:01], Markus Armbruster wrote:

Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com> writes:

On (Fri) 18 Jul 2014 [13:15:18], Markus Armbruster wrote:

Amit Shah <amit.shah@redhat.com> writes:

On (Fri) 18 Jul 2014 [08:27:59], Markus Armbruster wrote:

John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com> writes:

If a negative integer is used for the max_bytes parameter, QEMU currently
calls abort() and leaves behind a core dump. This patch adds a simple
error message to make the reason for the termination clearer.

Signed-off-by: John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>
---
v2: Changed 0L constant to (uint64_t)0 constant to match PRId64 format code
    on both 32bit and 64bit systems. Tested via -m32 flag.

 hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c
index 1356aca..64c7d23 100644
--- a/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c
+++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-rng.c
@@ -181,7 +181,11 @@ static void virtio_rng_device_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
 
     vrng->vq = virtio_add_queue(vdev, 8, handle_input);
 
-    assert(vrng->conf.max_bytes <= INT64_MAX);
+    if (vrng->conf.max_bytes > INT64_MAX) {
+        error_set(errp, QERR_PROPERTY_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE, "virtio-rng",
+                  "max_bytes", vrng->conf.max_bytes, (uint64_t)0, INT64_MAX);

Missed this initially: the property name is "max-bytes", not
"max_bytes".  Please fix.

+        return;
+    }
     vrng->quota_remaining = vrng->conf.max_bytes;
 
     vrng->rate_limit_timer = timer_new_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL,

Elsewhere in this function, we use

        error_set(errp, QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE, "period",
                  "a positive number");

Existing uses of QERR_PROPERTY_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE are all for intervals
with small bounds.

That's suggestion for a 2.2 patch, right?

This *is* a 2.2 patch, isn't it?

This one I proposed for 2.1 (because a device hotplug could cause qemu
to abort).

Okay.

Do you think the usage as in this patch is fine?

It's not wrong, just inconsistent with existing usage.  I'd prefer
consistency.

Right.  Which one do you prefer -- both using
QERR_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE, or QERR_PROPERTY_VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE?  I
prefer the latter.

I prefer

    qemu: -device virtio-rng-pci,period=0: Parameter 'period'
expects a positive number

over

    qemu: -device virtio-rng-pci,max-bytes=-1: Property
virtio-rng.max_bytes doesn't take value -1 (minimum: 0, maximum:
9223372036854775807)

because frankly, "maximum: 9223372036854775807", while precise, borders
on gibberish.  Precise gibberish, I guess :)

Taking a step back: the property is uint64_t.  Why isn't the upper bound
simply UINT64_MAX?

OK - let's take this for 2.2 and get this answered.  The risk isn't
too great for the abort, since the user cannot innocently provide
negative values.

Mekse sense.

John, can you look at Markus's comments and address them in a series?

Yes, please.

Understand that my opinion on the error messages is just an opinion :)