Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1434666
"-numa" should not silently accept an invalid parameter ("size")
Last modified: 2017-08-01 23:39:56 EDT
Description of problem: "-numa" silently should not accept an invalid parameter ("size") Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): x86, kernel-3.10.0-600.el7.x86_64 qemu-kvm-rhev-2.8.0-6.el7.x86_64 ppc64le, kernel-3.10.0-600.el7.ppc64le qemu-kvm-rhev-2.8.0-6.el7.ppc64le SLOF-20160223-6.gitdbbfda4.el7.noarch How reproducible: Always, Steps to Reproduce: 1.boot up guest with cli ... -m 4G -smp 4,maxcpus=8 -numa node,size=2G,cpus=0,cpus=2,cpus=4,cpus=6 -numa node,size=2G,cpus=1,cpus=3,cpus=5,cpus=7 ... 2.The guest could boot up successfully. Actual results: Invalid parameter "size="is accepted by qemu-kvm Expected results: The "size=" value should not be accepted by qemu-kvm at all Additional info: Please refer to one bug 1433193 for further investigation if necessary
Both x86 and ppc64le has this issue from QE perspective,thanks a lot.
Upstream patch proposed: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-03/msg04275.html Regression introduced in upstream qemu 2.7 in the QemuOpts visitor
Merged upstream in time to land in v2.9.0-rc2: 0832970 qom: Fix regression with 'qom-type' 21f88d0 qapi: Fix QemuOpts visitor regression on unvisited input 9a6d1ac qom: Avoid unvisited 'id'/'qom-type' in user_creatable_add_opts 76861f6 tests: Expose regression in QemuOpts visitor
Verify: qemu-kvm-rhev-2.9.0-1.el7 kernel-3.10.0-655.el7.x86_64 Boot guest with size option for numa node, # /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -m 4G,slots=40,maxmem=40G \ -drive file=rhel74.qcow2,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk0,format=qcow2,cache=none -device virtio-blk-pci,drive=drive-virtio-disk0,id=virtio-disk0,bootindex=1 \ -netdev tap,id=idinWyYp -device virtio-net-pci,mac=42:ce:a9:d2:4d:d7,id=idlbq7eA,netdev=idinWyYp \ -vnc :0 -monitor stdio \ -numa node,size=1G \ -numa node,size=3G Guest failed to boot and print error message: qemu-kvm: -numa node,size=1G: Invalid parameter 'size' So the bug is fixed.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017:2392