* Peter Maydell (peter.mayd...@linaro.org) wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 19:08, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) > <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> > > > > Unregister the fd handler before we destroy the channel, > > otherwise we've got a race where we might land in the > > fd handler just as we're closing the device. > > > > (The race is quite data dependent, you just have to have > > the right set of devices for it to trigger). > > > > Corresponds to RH bz: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666601 > > > > Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> > > --- > > migration/rdma.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/migration/rdma.c b/migration/rdma.c > > index 9b2e7e10aa..54a3c11540 100644 > > --- a/migration/rdma.c > > +++ b/migration/rdma.c > > @@ -2321,6 +2321,7 @@ static void qemu_rdma_cleanup(RDMAContext *rdma) > > rdma->connected = false; > > } > > > > + qemu_set_fd_handler(rdma->channel->fd, NULL, NULL, NULL); > > g_free(rdma->dest_blocks); > > rdma->dest_blocks = NULL; > > Hi -- this patch makes coverity complain (CID 1398634), > because here we use rdma->channel without checking that it is NULL, > but later in the function we have an "if (rdma->channel)" test. > Should this code be conditional on rmda->channel being non-NULL, > or is the later test incorrect?
Yes, it's got a point - I can seg that. I'll post a fix. Dave > thanks > -- PMM -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
