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 E0FBCCAC5AE for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2025 06:52:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1v22Iw-0001gX-Eb; Fri, 26 Sep 2025 02:51:42 -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 1v22Iu-0001f0-2e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2025 02:51:40 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1v22If-0003fp-J2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2025 02:51:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1758869479; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject: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=RRUZivPap8McvrSJcRmmzR23XjEuBZHs55biujcAoOI=; b=S3pmtk9t8hI1Ry5N/TaV5DdmemWjsYgCtvxSrxar95zeK8rGvdHtgOaRYlJKhGvoF3RZOz +FRxV9i8k8OYsf+9zuvJsAOgv0F4DTeJ7SfST+PZu/niIgwWKQW1//dpUOgBsomE3/crQT /1u4Fp1zjVuXYAIdF64Z5kL8+b3Zarc= Received: from mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-606-PG0qE7KUM_iRg0nWH-DtHA-1; Fri, 26 Sep 2025 02:51:14 -0400 X-MC-Unique: PG0qE7KUM_iRg0nWH-DtHA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: PG0qE7KUM_iRg0nWH-DtHA_1758869472 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 713C61800370; Fri, 26 Sep 2025 06:51:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.45.242.33]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50F0E180044F; Fri, 26 Sep 2025 06:51:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6EC5A21E6A27; Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:51:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, odaki@rsg.ci.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp, marcandre.lureau@redhat.com, berrange@redhat.com, richard.henderson@linaro.org, Jagannathan Raman Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/13] hw/remote/vfio-user: Clean up error reporting In-Reply-To: <1a10e0d3-17fc-4ec9-aa4c-cdfed13988e6@yandex-team.ru> (Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy's message of "Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:14:23 +0300") References: <20250923091000.3180122-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20250923091000.3180122-6-armbru@redhat.com> <1a10e0d3-17fc-4ec9-aa4c-cdfed13988e6@yandex-team.ru> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:51:08 +0200 Message-ID: <878qi1so4j.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -24 X-Spam_score: -2.5 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.445, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01 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 Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy writes: > On 23.09.25 12:09, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> VFU_OBJECT_ERROR() reports the error with error_setg(&error_abort, >> ...) when auto-shutdown is enabled, else with error_report(). >> >> Issues: >> >> 1. The error is serious enough to warrant aborting the process when >> auto-shutdown is enabled, yet harmless enough to permit carrying on >> when it's disabled. This makes no sense to me. >> >> 2. Like assert(), &error_abort is strictly for programming errors. Is >> this one? > > Brief look at the code make me think that, no it isn't. So the use of &error_abort is wrong. >> Or should we exit(1) instead? >> >> 3. qapi/error.h advises "don't error_setg(&error_abort, ...), use >> assert()." >> >> This patch addresses just 3. >> >> Cc: Jagannathan Raman >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster >> --- >> hw/remote/vfio-user-obj.c | 9 +++------ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> diff --git a/hw/remote/vfio-user-obj.c b/hw/remote/vfio-user-obj.c >> index ea6165ebdc..eb96982a3a 100644 >> --- a/hw/remote/vfio-user-obj.c >> +++ b/hw/remote/vfio-user-obj.c >> @@ -75,12 +75,9 @@ OBJECT_DECLARE_TYPE(VfuObject, VfuObjectClass, VFU_OBJECT) >> */ >> #define VFU_OBJECT_ERROR(o, fmt, ...) \ >> { \ >> - if (vfu_object_auto_shutdown()) { \ >> - error_setg(&error_abort, (fmt), ## __VA_ARGS__); \ >> - } else { \ >> - error_report((fmt), ## __VA_ARGS__); \ >> - } \ >> - } \ >> + error_report((fmt), ## __VA_ARGS__); \ >> + assert(!vfu_object_auto_shutdown()); \ > > Probably, it's only my feeling, but for me, assert() is really strictly bound > to programming errors, more than abort(). Using abort() for errors which are > not programming, but we can't handle them looks less confusing, i.e. > > if (vfu_object_auto_shutdown()) { > abort(); > } assert(COND) is if (COND) abort() plus a message meant to help developers. Both are for programming errors. If it isn't something that needs debugging, why dump core? But this particular error condition is *not* a programming error. So assert(!vfu_object_auto_shutdown()); and if (vfu_object_auto_shutdown()) { abort(); } are both equally wrong. However, the latter makes it easier to add a FIXME comment: if (vfu_object_auto_shutdown()) { /* * FIXME This looks inappropriate. The error is serious * enough programming error to warrant aborting the process * when auto-shutdown is enabled, yet harmless enough to * permit carrying on when it's disabled. Makes no sense. */ abort(); } The commit message would then need a tweak. Perhaps Issues: 1. The error is serious enough to warrant killing the process when auto-shutdown is enabled, yet harmless enough to permit carrying on when it's disabled. This makes no sense to me. 2. Like assert(), &error_abort is strictly for programming errors. Is this one? Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy tells me it's not. 3. qapi/error.h advises "don't error_setg(&error_abort, ...), use assert()." This patch addresses just 3. It adds a FIXME comment for the other two. Thoughts? > Not really matter. Anyway: > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy Thanks! >> + } >> struct VfuObjectClass { >> ObjectClass parent_class;