Message ID | 160309727218.2739814.14722724927730985344.stgit@bahia.lan (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | spapr: Error handling fixes and cleanups (round 3) | expand |
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:47:52AM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > Hi, > > This is a followup to a previous cleanup for the sPAPR code: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-09/msg04860.html > > The last two patches had to be dropped because they were wrongly assuming > that object_property_get_uint() returning zero meant failure. This led to > a discussion in which arose a consensus that most of the time (not to say > always) object property getters should never fail actually, ie. failure > is very likely the result of a programming error and QEMU should abort. > > This series aims at demonstrating a revelant case I've found while auditing > object property getters (this is patch 4 that I've isolated from a huge > 50-patch series I haven't dared to post yet). The sPAPR memory hotplug code > is tailored to support either regular PC DIMMs or NVDIMMs, which inherit > from PC DIMMs. They expect to get some properties from the DIMM object, > which happens to be set by default at the PC DIMM class level. It thus > doesn't make sense to pass an error object and propagate it when getting > them since this would lure the user into thinking they did something wrong. > > Some preliminary cleanup is done on the way, especially dropping an unused > @errp argument of pc_dimm_plug(). This affects several platforms other than > sPAPR but I guess the patch is trivial enough to go through David's tree > if it gets acks from the relevant maintainers. Since this series mostly affects ppc, I've applied it to ppc-for-5.2. It would be nice to have an acked-by from Igor or Michael for the first patch, though. > > --- > > Greg Kurz (5): > pc-dimm: Drop @errp argument of pc_dimm_plug() > spapr: Use appropriate getter for PC_DIMM_ADDR_PROP > spapr: Use appropriate getter for PC_DIMM_SLOT_PROP > spapr: Pass &error_abort when getting some PC DIMM properties > spapr: Simplify error handling in spapr_memory_plug() > > > hw/arm/virt.c | 9 +------- > hw/i386/pc.c | 8 +------ > hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 2 +- > hw/ppc/spapr.c | 48 +++++++++++++++-------------------------- > hw/ppc/spapr_nvdimm.c | 5 +++- > include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 2 +- > include/hw/ppc/spapr_nvdimm.h | 2 +- > 7 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) >
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:11:42 +1100 David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:47:52AM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is a followup to a previous cleanup for the sPAPR code: > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-09/msg04860.html > > > > The last two patches had to be dropped because they were wrongly assuming > > that object_property_get_uint() returning zero meant failure. This led to > > a discussion in which arose a consensus that most of the time (not to say > > always) object property getters should never fail actually, ie. failure > > is very likely the result of a programming error and QEMU should abort. > > > > This series aims at demonstrating a revelant case I've found while auditing > > object property getters (this is patch 4 that I've isolated from a huge > > 50-patch series I haven't dared to post yet). The sPAPR memory hotplug code > > is tailored to support either regular PC DIMMs or NVDIMMs, which inherit > > from PC DIMMs. They expect to get some properties from the DIMM object, > > which happens to be set by default at the PC DIMM class level. It thus > > doesn't make sense to pass an error object and propagate it when getting > > them since this would lure the user into thinking they did something wrong. > > > > Some preliminary cleanup is done on the way, especially dropping an unused > > @errp argument of pc_dimm_plug(). This affects several platforms other than > > sPAPR but I guess the patch is trivial enough to go through David's tree > > if it gets acks from the relevant maintainers. > > Since this series mostly affects ppc, I've applied it to ppc-for-5.2. > > It would be nice to have an acked-by from Igor or Michael for the > first patch, though. > David, Igor sent a R-b for patches 1 and 4. He also suggested to call spapr_drc_attach() at pre-plug time. I'll look into this, so maybe you can drop patch 5 from ppc-for-5.2 (or the entire series at your convenience). Cheers, -- Greg > > > > --- > > > > Greg Kurz (5): > > pc-dimm: Drop @errp argument of pc_dimm_plug() > > spapr: Use appropriate getter for PC_DIMM_ADDR_PROP > > spapr: Use appropriate getter for PC_DIMM_SLOT_PROP > > spapr: Pass &error_abort when getting some PC DIMM properties > > spapr: Simplify error handling in spapr_memory_plug() > > > > > > hw/arm/virt.c | 9 +------- > > hw/i386/pc.c | 8 +------ > > hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 2 +- > > hw/ppc/spapr.c | 48 +++++++++++++++-------------------------- > > hw/ppc/spapr_nvdimm.c | 5 +++- > > include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 2 +- > > include/hw/ppc/spapr_nvdimm.h | 2 +- > > 7 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > >
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 11:13:40 +0100 Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:11:42 +1100 > David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:47:52AM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > This is a followup to a previous cleanup for the sPAPR code: > > > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-09/msg04860.html > > > > > > The last two patches had to be dropped because they were wrongly assuming > > > that object_property_get_uint() returning zero meant failure. This led to > > > a discussion in which arose a consensus that most of the time (not to say > > > always) object property getters should never fail actually, ie. failure > > > is very likely the result of a programming error and QEMU should abort. > > > > > > This series aims at demonstrating a revelant case I've found while auditing > > > object property getters (this is patch 4 that I've isolated from a huge > > > 50-patch series I haven't dared to post yet). The sPAPR memory hotplug code > > > is tailored to support either regular PC DIMMs or NVDIMMs, which inherit > > > from PC DIMMs. They expect to get some properties from the DIMM object, > > > which happens to be set by default at the PC DIMM class level. It thus > > > doesn't make sense to pass an error object and propagate it when getting > > > them since this would lure the user into thinking they did something wrong. > > > > > > Some preliminary cleanup is done on the way, especially dropping an unused > > > @errp argument of pc_dimm_plug(). This affects several platforms other than > > > sPAPR but I guess the patch is trivial enough to go through David's tree > > > if it gets acks from the relevant maintainers. > > > > Since this series mostly affects ppc, I've applied it to ppc-for-5.2. > > > > It would be nice to have an acked-by from Igor or Michael for the > > first patch, though. > > > > David, > > Igor sent a R-b for patches 1 and 4. He also suggested to call > spapr_drc_attach() at pre-plug time. I'll look into this, so maybe > you can drop patch 5 from ppc-for-5.2 (or the entire series at > your convenience). > It seems that spapr_drc_attach() cannot be called at pre-plug time actually because there is no way to call spapr_drc_detach() if the device fails to realize. I think you there's nothing else to do for this series than adding Igor's r-b to patches 1 and 4. > Cheers, > > -- > Greg > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Greg Kurz (5): > > > pc-dimm: Drop @errp argument of pc_dimm_plug() > > > spapr: Use appropriate getter for PC_DIMM_ADDR_PROP > > > spapr: Use appropriate getter for PC_DIMM_SLOT_PROP > > > spapr: Pass &error_abort when getting some PC DIMM properties > > > spapr: Simplify error handling in spapr_memory_plug() > > > > > > > > > hw/arm/virt.c | 9 +------- > > > hw/i386/pc.c | 8 +------ > > > hw/mem/pc-dimm.c | 2 +- > > > hw/ppc/spapr.c | 48 +++++++++++++++-------------------------- > > > hw/ppc/spapr_nvdimm.c | 5 +++- > > > include/hw/mem/pc-dimm.h | 2 +- > > > include/hw/ppc/spapr_nvdimm.h | 2 +- > > > 7 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > > > > > >
On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 10:33:06PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 11:13:40 +0100 > Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:11:42 +1100 > > David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:47:52AM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > This is a followup to a previous cleanup for the sPAPR code: > > > > > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-09/msg04860.html > > > > > > > > The last two patches had to be dropped because they were wrongly assuming > > > > that object_property_get_uint() returning zero meant failure. This led to > > > > a discussion in which arose a consensus that most of the time (not to say > > > > always) object property getters should never fail actually, ie. failure > > > > is very likely the result of a programming error and QEMU should abort. > > > > > > > > This series aims at demonstrating a revelant case I've found while auditing > > > > object property getters (this is patch 4 that I've isolated from a huge > > > > 50-patch series I haven't dared to post yet). The sPAPR memory hotplug code > > > > is tailored to support either regular PC DIMMs or NVDIMMs, which inherit > > > > from PC DIMMs. They expect to get some properties from the DIMM object, > > > > which happens to be set by default at the PC DIMM class level. It thus > > > > doesn't make sense to pass an error object and propagate it when getting > > > > them since this would lure the user into thinking they did something wrong. > > > > > > > > Some preliminary cleanup is done on the way, especially dropping an unused > > > > @errp argument of pc_dimm_plug(). This affects several platforms other than > > > > sPAPR but I guess the patch is trivial enough to go through David's tree > > > > if it gets acks from the relevant maintainers. > > > > > > Since this series mostly affects ppc, I've applied it to ppc-for-5.2. > > > > > > It would be nice to have an acked-by from Igor or Michael for the > > > first patch, though. > > > > > > > David, > > > > Igor sent a R-b for patches 1 and 4. He also suggested to call > > spapr_drc_attach() at pre-plug time. I'll look into this, so maybe > > you can drop patch 5 from ppc-for-5.2 (or the entire series at > > your convenience). > > > > It seems that spapr_drc_attach() cannot be called at pre-plug time > actually because there is no way to call spapr_drc_detach() if > the device fails to realize. I think you there's nothing else to do > for this series than adding Igor's r-b to patches 1 and 4. Ok. In fact I'd already added Igor's r-b, just hadn't pushed out my latest tree.