On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 07:45:11AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 12.09.2017 19:37, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 08:13:21AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> On 09.09.2017 22:41, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >>> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:59:32AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >>>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> On 05.09.2017 18:48, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > >>>>>> * Markus Armbruster (arm...@redhat.com) wrote: > >>>>>>> Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> People tend to forget to mark internal devices with "user_creatable > >>>>>>>> = false > >>>>>>>> or hotpluggable = false, and these devices can crash QEMU if added > >>>>>>>> via the > >>>>>>>> HMP monitor. So let's add a test to run through all devices and that > >>>>>>>> tries > >>>>>>>> to add them blindly (without arguments) to see whether this could > >>>>>>>> crash the > >>>>>>>> QEMU instance. > >> [...] > >>>>>>> * The device supports only cold plug with -device, not hot plug with > >>>>>>> device_add. > >>>>> > >>>>> We've got Eduardo's scripts/device-crash-test script for that already, > >>>>> so no need to cover that here. > >>>> > >>>> Point taken. So this test is really about hot plug / unplug. Suggest > >>>> to clarify the commit message: s/add them blindly/hotplug and unplug > >>>> them blindly/. > >>> > >>> We could extend device-crash-test to test device_add too, as it > >>> already has extra code to deal with known crashes and testing > >>> multiple machine-types. Also, any additional code we write to > >>> ensure we add mandatory arguments or plug only to valid buses > >>> would apply to both -device and device_add. I also think Python > >>> test code is easier to maintain and extend, but that's just my > >>> personal preference. > >> > >> Adding device_add/del support to device-crash-test is certainly an > >> option. The problem is that nobody runs it by default, so this won't > >> help to avoid that new problems are being committed to the repository. > >> > >> I think we really should have a test for "make check", too. So would my > >> test be acceptable if I'd rewrite it to use QMP instead (I don't think I > >> could do the full list that Markus mentioned, but at least a basic test > >> via QMP as a start)? > > > > We can run device-crash-test on "make check", we just need to > > choose what's the subset of tests we want to run (because testing > > all machine+device+target combinations would take too long). > > Maybe we should just run it one time for every machine - and try to add > all available devices at once?
Yes, it makes sense. I will keep that in mind when trying to implement device_add support on device-crash-test (but if anybody wants to volunteer to implement it, be my guest). -- Eduardo