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 4F9A6C433EF for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 16:29:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:59236 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nSi8l-0000iJ-Qy for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 11:29:19 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44586) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nSi88-0008SZ-ND for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 11:28:40 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]:26017) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nSi85-0008DO-El for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 11:28:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1647016116; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1y8V67u4igVwpWW3GUaYZ3rxt1WMzkwqB/lgjJHcBzk=; b=Vmxu05ITlxuIwSG1FewD+Zkkm09AG0uvSRJZ5iP8lx7n7otJvxPRnTF52nEW+lWan6nUZa czYRlT66D6vEO+u20IwUNif9oNvtInJqie9T/OFFtA+SVbYcP287u7MuaBTXqUN/P3wnYw xR4Ur80ZcQ69GEgvdJv05/4cPC9JZmo= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-421-XkMdhR0GNYmzUvEkL4svvg-1; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 11:28:32 -0500 X-MC-Unique: XkMdhR0GNYmzUvEkL4svvg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C197F1854E27; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 16:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from p50.localhost.localdomain.some.host.somewhere.org (unknown [10.22.9.34]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EB4B865B2; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 16:28:16 +0000 (UTC) References: <20220311130919.2120958-1-bleal@redhat.com> <875yokpnbn.fsf@p50.localhost.localdomain> <20220311150054.tfn4wtbzm6uhflcu@laptop.redhat> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.6; emacs 27.2 From: Cleber Rosa To: Beraldo Leal Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests/avocado: starts PhoneServer upfront Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 11:18:38 -0500 In-reply-to: <20220311150054.tfn4wtbzm6uhflcu@laptop.redhat> Message-ID: <87wnh0xxlz.fsf@p50.localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=crosa@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=crosa@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.082, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-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: , Cc: thuth@redhat.com, berrange@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Beraldo Leal writes: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 09:28:24AM -0500, Cleber Rosa wrote: >>=20 >> Beraldo Leal writes: >>=20 >> > Race conditions can happen with the current code, because the port tha= t >> > was available might not be anymore by the time the server is started. >> > >> > By setting the port to 0, PhoneServer it will use the OS default >> > behavior to get a free port, then we save this information so we can >> > later configure the guest. >> > >> > Suggested-by: Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 >> > Signed-off-by: Beraldo Leal >> > --- >> > tests/avocado/avocado_qemu/__init__.py | 13 ++++++++----- >> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/tests/avocado/avocado_qemu/__init__.py b/tests/avocado/av= ocado_qemu/__init__.py >> > index 9b056b5ce5..e830d04b84 100644 >> > --- a/tests/avocado/avocado_qemu/__init__.py >> > +++ b/tests/avocado/avocado_qemu/__init__.py >> > @@ -602,9 +602,8 @@ def prepare_cloudinit(self, ssh_pubkey=3DNone): >> > self.log.info('Preparing cloudinit image') >> > try: >> > cloudinit_iso =3D os.path.join(self.workdir, 'cloudinit.i= so') >> > - self.phone_home_port =3D network.find_free_port() >> > - if not self.phone_home_port: >> > - self.cancel('Failed to get a free port') >> > + if not self.phone_server: >> > + self.cancel('Failed to get port used by the PhoneServ= er.') >>=20 >> Can you think of a condition where `self.phone_server` would not >> evaluate to True? `network.find_free_port()` could return None, so this >> check was valid. But now with `cloudinit.PhoneHomeServer`, I can not >> see how we'd end up with a similar condition. Instantiating >> `cloudinit.PhoneHomeServer` where a port can not be alloccated, AFAICT, >> would raise a socket exception instead. > > Since this is a public method and could be called anytime before > set_up_cloudinit(), I decided to keep the check just for safety reasons. > Ideally, I would prefer not to have this dependency and add a new > argument, but I didn't want to change the method signature since it > would be required. > I'm not sure I follow your point. Let me try to rephrase mine, in case I failed to communicate it: I can't see how "if not self.phone_server" is a valid check given that it will either: * Contain an instance with a port that is already allocated, OR * Not get assigned if cloudinit.PhoneHomeServer() fails (and raises an exception). Instead of this check, it'd make sense to have a try/except block protecting the PhoneHomeServer instantiation, and canceling the test if it fails. Or maybe you meant to check for self.phone_server.server_port instead? Cheers, - Cleber.