From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 V3] fix rename: xenstore not fully updated Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:28:30 +0000 Message-ID: <1416497310.14429.20.camel@citrix.com> References: <1416378851-32236-1-git-send-email-cyliu@suse.com> <21612.32360.328456.516321@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20141119212505.GJ20440@laptop.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141119212505.GJ20440@laptop.dumpdata.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, Ian Jackson , Chunyan Liu , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 16:25 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:26:32AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Hi Konrad, I have another release ack request: > > > > Chunyan Liu writes ("[PATCH 0/2 V3] fix rename: xenstore not fully updated"): > > > Currently libxl__domain_rename only update /local/domain//name, > > > still some places in xenstore are not updated, including: > > > /vm//name and /local/domain/0/backend///.../domain. > > > This patch series updates /vm//name in xenstore, > > > > This ("[PATCH 2/2 V3] fix rename: xenstore not fully updated") is a > > bugfix which I think should go into Xen 4.5. > > > > The risk WITHOUT this patch is that there are out-of-tree tools which > > look here for the domain name and will get confused after it is > > renamed. > > When was this introduced? Did it exist with Xend? Based on: git grep domain\" RELEASE-4.4.0 tools/python/ git grep domain\' RELEASE-4.4.0 tools/python/ it doesn't appear so, but someone with a xend install would be needed to confirm for sure. Given that this has always been wrong for a libxl domain after migration it seems likely to me that noone is looking at this field. > > > > > The risk WITH this patch is that the implementation could be wrong > > somehow, in which case the code would need to be updated again. But > > it's a very small patch and has been fully reviewed. > > I checked QEMU and didn't find anything in there. Great.