Re: [Xen-devel] Xen crashing when killing a domain with no VCPUs allocated

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 21.07.14 at 14:57, <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On lun, 2014-07-21 at 12:46 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 07/21/2014 11:33 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
>> > On 07/18/2014 09:26 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> 
>> >> diff --git a/xen/common/schedule.c b/xen/common/schedule.c
>> >> index e9eb0bc..c44d047 100644
>> >> --- a/xen/common/schedule.c
>> >> +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
>> >> @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ int sched_move_domain(struct domain *d, struct
>> >> cpupool *c)
>> >>       }
>> >>         /* Do we have vcpus already? If not, no need to update
>> >> node-affinity */
>> >> -    if ( d->vcpu )
>> >> +    if ( d->vcpu && d->vcpu[0] != NULL )
>> >>           domain_update_node_affinity(d);
>> > 
> 
>> > Overall it seems like those checks for the existence of cpus should be
>> > moved into domain_update_node_affinity().  The ASSERT() there I think is
>> > just a sanity check to make sure we're not getting a ridiculous result
>> > out of our calculation; but of course if there actually are no vcpus,
>> > it's not ridiculous at all.
>> > 
>> > One solution might be to change the ASSERT to
>> > ASSERT(!cpumask_empty(dom_cpumask) || !d->vcpu || !d->vcpu[0]).  Then we
>> > could probably even remove the d->vcpu conditional when calling it.
>> 
>> This solution also works for me. Which change do you prefer?
>> 
> FWIW, I think I like changing the ASSERT() in
> domain_update_node_affinity(), as George suggested (and perhaps with the
> reordering Andrew suggested) better.

+1

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel