Hi Markus,
On 3/30/20 3:18 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilb...@redhat.com> writes:
* Mao Zhongyi (maozhon...@cmss.chinamobile.com) wrote:
run:
(qemu) info migrate_parameters
announce-initial: 50 ms
...
announce-max: 550 ms
multifd-compression: none
xbzrle-cache-size: 4194304
max-postcopy-bandwidth: 0
tls-authz: '(null)'
Migration parameter 'tls-authz' is used to provide the QOM ID
of a QAuthZ subclass instance that provides the access control
check, default is NULL. But the empty string is not a valid
object ID, so use "" instead of the default. Although it will
fail when lookup an object with ID "", it is harmless, just
consistent with tls_creds.
Yes, it's probably the best we can do given Dan's explanation that
we can't change tls_authz to be non-null.
As I explained in Message-ID: <878sjv11xm....@dusky.pond.sub.org>, this
is actually a crash bug on some systems. The commit message neglects to
mention that. Too late to fix now. Next time :)
Oops, I will continue to follow up on this issue.
Also fixed the bad indentation on the last line.
Signed-off-by: Mao Zhongyi <maozhon...@cmss.chinamobile.com>
---
migration/migration.c | 3 ++-
monitor/hmp-cmds.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/migration/migration.c b/migration/migration.c
index c1d88ace7f..b060153ef7 100644
--- a/migration/migration.c
+++ b/migration/migration.c
@@ -790,7 +790,8 @@ MigrationParameters *qmp_query_migrate_parameters(Error
**errp)
params->has_tls_hostname = true;
params->tls_hostname = g_strdup(s->parameters.tls_hostname);
params->has_tls_authz = true;
- params->tls_authz = g_strdup(s->parameters.tls_authz);
+ params->tls_authz = s->parameters.tls_authz ? \
+ g_strdup(s->parameters.tls_authz) : g_strdup("");
The \ is unneeded; this isn't a macro; it's also a little shorter to do
it as:
params->tls_authz = g_strdup(s->parameters.tls_authz ?
s->parameters.tls_authz : "");
Even shorter:
params->tls_authz = g_strdup(s->parameters.tls_authz ?: "");
?: is a GNU C extension. We use it all over the place.
Just FYI. I'm *not* asking for the code to be changed.
Yes, it does look cooler, thanks for the clarification. I would prefer
to use this syntax in future patches.
Thanks,
Mao
