[Spice-devel] [spice-gtk] smartcard: Warn if multiple readers are detected

[Frediano Ziglio]

> 
> Hi
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 4:21 PM Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 03:59:00PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 5:17 PM Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > spice-server does not deal properly with multiple smartcard readers,
> > > > only the first one will be working. Add a warning when this happens to
> > > > make it easier to diagnose such issues.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  src/smartcard-manager.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/src/smartcard-manager.c b/src/smartcard-manager.c
> > > > index ceecfdc7..456c3c2e 100644
> > > > --- a/src/smartcard-manager.c
> > > > +++ b/src/smartcard-manager.c
> > > > @@ -389,6 +389,25 @@ typedef struct {
> > > >      GError *err;
> > > >  } SmartcardManagerInitArgs;
> > > >
> > > > +/* spice-server only supports one smartcard reader being in use */
> > > > +static void smartcard_check_reader_count(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +    unsigned int reader_count = 0;
> > > > +    GList *readers;
> > > > +    GList *it;
> > > > +
> > > > +    readers =
> > > > spice_smartcard_manager_get_readers(spice_smartcard_manager_get());
> > > > +
> > > > +    for (it = readers; it != NULL; it = it->next) {
> > > > +        reader_count++;
> > > > +        g_boxed_free(SPICE_TYPE_SMARTCARD_READER, it->data);
> > > > +    }
> > > > +    if (reader_count > 1) {
> > > > +        g_warning("Multiple smartcard readers are plugged in, only the
> > > > first one will be shared with the VM");
> > > > +    }
> > > > +    g_list_free(readers);
> > >
> > >
> > > looks ok, ack
> > >
> > > it could eventually be simplified with g_list_count() &
> > > g_list_free_full() (that would require wrapping the boxed_free with a
> > > helper)
> >
> > I thought about it, given the need for a wrapper, it felt better to do
> > it this way.
> >
> 
> The wrapper could potentially simplify other parts of the code, your call.
> 

Why not using vreader_get_reader_list directly? It has a simple vreader_list_delete.

Frediano