Hi Cornelia,
On 11/28/19 19:11, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> The Posix implementation of guest-set-time invokes hwclock to
> set/retrieve the time to/from the hardware clock. If hwclock
> is not available, the user is currently informed that "hwclock
> failed to set hardware clock to system time", which is quite
> misleading. This may happen e.g. on s390x, which has a different
> timekeeping concept anyway.
>
> Let's check for the availability of the hwclock command and
> return QERR_UNSUPPORTED for guest-set-time if it is not available.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com>
> ---
>
> v1 (RFC) -> v2:
> - use hwclock_path[]
> - use access() instead of stat()
>
> ---
> qga/commands-posix.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/qga/commands-posix.c b/qga/commands-posix.c
> index 1c1a165daed8..ffb6420fa9cd 100644
> --- a/qga/commands-posix.c
> +++ b/qga/commands-posix.c
> @@ -156,6 +156,17 @@ void qmp_guest_set_time(bool has_time, int64_t time_ns,
> Error **errp)
> pid_t pid;
> Error *local_err = NULL;
> struct timeval tv;
> + const char hwclock_path[] = "/sbin/hwclock";
Did you drop the "static" storage-class specifier on purpose?
> + static int hwclock_available = -1;
> +
> + if (hwclock_available < 0) {
> + hwclock_available = (access(hwclock_path, X_OK) == 0);
> + }
> +
> + if (!hwclock_available) {
> + error_setg(errp, QERR_UNSUPPORTED);
> + return;
> + }
>
> /* If user has passed a time, validate and set it. */
> if (has_time) {
> @@ -195,7 +206,7 @@ void qmp_guest_set_time(bool has_time, int64_t time_ns,
> Error **errp)
>
> /* Use '/sbin/hwclock -w' to set RTC from the system time,
> * or '/sbin/hwclock -s' to set the system time from RTC. */
> - execle("/sbin/hwclock", "hwclock", has_time ? "-w" : "-s",
> + execle(hwclock_path, "hwclock", has_time ? "-w" : "-s",
I think it's somewhat obscure now that arg="hwclock" is supposed to
match the last pathname component in hwclock_path="/sbin/hwclock".
There are multiple ways to compute "arg" like that, of course. But I
think they all look uglier than the above. So I'm fine if we just keep this.
If you purposely dropped the "static", then:
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
If you just missed the "static" and now intend to add it back, then for v3:
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
Thanks
Laszlo
> NULL, environ);
> _exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> } else if (pid < 0) {
>
