On 08/11/2016 02:27 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 05.08.2016 23:38, Jim Fehlig wrote: >> <snip/> >> With vendor = 0x0, &host_model->vendor->cpuid evaluates to 8, which >> is not a nice value to pass to virCPUx86DataAddCPUID(). Check for a >> non-null host_model->vendor before calling virCPUx86DataAddCPUID(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Jim Fehlig <jfeh...@suse.com> >> --- >> src/cpu/cpu_x86.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c b/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c >> index d9646eb..09eaaa2 100644 >> --- a/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c >> +++ b/src/cpu/cpu_x86.c >> @@ -1576,7 +1576,7 @@ x86Compute(virCPUDefPtr host, >> if (!(guest_model = x86ModelCopy(host_model))) >> goto error; >> >> - if (cpu->vendor && >> + if (cpu->vendor && host_model->vendor && >> virCPUx86DataAddCPUID(&guest_model->data, >> &host_model->vendor->cpuid) < 0) >> goto error; > > Looks reasonable to me. If there's no host vendor, we shouldn't add the > CPU to our database. > > ACK if you write some sensible commit message to your patch.
Thanks. I've finally gotten around to fixing the commit message and pushing the patch. Regards, Jim -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
