If @client hasn't been opened, then don't call virNetServerClientClose
since that'll cause certain failure.
Found by Coverity
Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com>
Validate that the virNetServer(Client) RPC APIs are processing the
private data callbacks correctly by passing in non-NULL pointers.
Reviewed-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
Direct leak of 104 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from:
#0 0x7f904bfbe12b (/lib64/liblsan.so.0+0xe12b)
#1 0x7f904ba0ad67 in virAlloc ../../src/util/viralloc.c:144
#2 0x7f904bbc11a4 in virNetMessageNew ../../src/rpc/virnetmessage.c:42
#3 0x7f904bbb8e77 in virNetServerClientNewInternal ../../src/rpc/virnetserverclient.c:392
#4 0x7f904bbb9921 in virNetServerClientNew ../../src/rpc/virnetserverclient.c:440
#5 0x402ce5 in testIdentity ../../tests/virnetserverclienttest.c:55
#6 0x403bed in virTestRun ../../tests/testutils.c:180
#7 0x402c1e in mymain ../../tests/virnetserverclienttest.c:146
#8 0x404c80 in virTestMain ../../tests/testutils.c:1119
#9 0x4030d5 in main ../../tests/virnetserverclienttest.c:152
#10 0x7f9047f7f889 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x20889)
Indirect leak of 4 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from:
#0 0x7f904bfbe12b (/lib64/liblsan.so.0+0xe12b)
#1 0x7f904ba0adc7 in virAllocN ../../src/util/viralloc.c:191
#2 0x7f904bbb8ec7 in virNetServerClientNewInternal ../../src/rpc/virnetserverclient.c:395
#3 0x7f904bbb9921 in virNetServerClientNew ../../src/rpc/virnetserverclient.c:440
#4 0x402ce5 in testIdentity ../../tests/virnetserverclienttest.c:55
#5 0x403bed in virTestRun ../../tests/testutils.c:180
#6 0x402c1e in mymain ../../tests/virnetserverclienttest.c:146
#7 0x404c80 in virTestMain ../../tests/testutils.c:1119
#8 0x4030d5 in main ../../tests/virnetserverclienttest.c:152
#9 0x7f9047f7f889 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x20889)
SUMMARY: LeakSanitizer: 108 byte(s) leaked in 2 allocation(s).
Signed-off-by: Marc Hartmayer <mhartmay@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com>
Admin API needs a way of addressing specific clients. Unlike servers, which we
are happy to address by names both because its name reflects its purpose (to
some extent) and we only have two of them (so far), naming clients doesn't make
any sense, since a) each client is an anonymous, i.e. not recognized after a
disconnect followed by a reconnect, b) we can't predict what kind of requests
it's going to send to daemon, and c) the are loads of them comming and going,
so the only viable option is to use an ID which is of a reasonably wide data
type.
Signed-off-by: Erik Skultety <eskultet@redhat.com>
The test case average timing code has not been used by any test
case ever. Delete it to remove complexity.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com>
Start a test case for the virNetServerClient object, which
initially checks the creation of a virIdentityPtr object.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com>
