[Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-gtk] spice-channel: return if has_error is TRUE in spice_channel_write_msg

[Frediano Ziglio]

> 
> Avoid linearizing if the message isn't written out anyway

"linearizing" ? What do you mean about that?
Looking at definitions it seems not correct to me.

> (spice_channel_flush_wire checks() this condition as well).
> 
> This also silences the following error:
> 
>     (spicy:32087): GSpice-CRITICAL **: 16:22:03.147:
>     spice_session_get_read_only: assertion 'SPICE_IS_SESSION(self)' failed
> 
> that can be seen if the channel gets disconnected
> by the session while having non-empty write queue.
> 
> spice_session_channel_destroy() sets channel->priv->session to NULL,
> but spice_channel_write_msg() subsequently attempts to call
> spice_session_get_read_only() with NULL pointer.
> 

Minor: this is the explanation why the error on the previous
paragraph should not be treated like an error, I think it should
be the same paragraphs.

OT: maybe channel session should never be NULL?

> Signed-off-by: Jakub Janků <jjanku at redhat.com>
> ---
>  src/spice-channel.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/src/spice-channel.c b/src/spice-channel.c
> index 61de177..aa80edf 100644
> --- a/src/spice-channel.c
> +++ b/src/spice-channel.c
> @@ -897,6 +897,11 @@ static void spice_channel_write_msg(SpiceChannel
> *channel, SpiceMsgOut *out)
>      g_return_if_fail(out != NULL);
>      g_return_if_fail(channel == out->channel);
>  
> +    if (channel->priv->has_error) {
> +        spice_msg_out_unref(out);
> +        return;
> +    }
> +
>      if (out->ro_check &&
>          spice_channel_get_read_only(channel)) {
>          g_warning("Try to send message while read-only. Please report a
>          bug.");

Frediano