[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2] file-posix: Skip effectiveless OFD lock oper
From: |
Kevin Wolf |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2] file-posix: Skip effectiveless OFD lock operations |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 10:22:59 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) |
Am 14.08.2018 um 10:12 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> On Mon, 08/13 15:42, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 13.08.2018 um 04:39 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> > > If we know we've already locked the bytes, don't do it again; similarly
> > > don't unlock a byte if we haven't locked it. This doesn't change the
> > > behavior, but fixes a corner case explained below.
> > >
> > > Libvirt had an error handling bug that an image can get its (ownership,
> > > file mode, SELinux) permissions changed (RHBZ 1584982) by mistake behind
> > > QEMU. Specifically, an image in use by Libvirt VM has:
> > >
> > > $ ls -lhZ b.img
> > > -rw-r--r--. qemu qemu system_u:object_r:svirt_image_t:s0:c600,c690
> > > b.img
> > >
> > > Trying to attach it a second time won't work because of image locking.
> > > And after the error, it becomes:
> > >
> > > $ ls -lhZ b.img
> > > -rw-r--r--. root root system_u:object_r:virt_image_t:s0 b.img
> > >
> > > Then, we won't be able to do OFD lock operations with the existing fd.
> > > In other words, the code such as in blk_detach_dev:
> > >
> > > blk_set_perm(blk, 0, BLK_PERM_ALL, &error_abort);
> > >
> > > can abort() QEMU, out of environmental changes.
> > >
> > > This patch is an easy fix to this and the change is regardlessly
> > > reasonable, so do it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <address@hidden>
> >
> > Thanks, applied to the block branch.
>
> Self-NACK. This breaks raw_abort_perm_update(). The extra bytes locked by
> raw_check_perm() are not tracked by s->perm (it is only updated in
> raw_set_perm()), thus will not get released. This patch is "misusing" s->perm
> and s->shared_perm.
>
> I'll revise the implementation and send another version together with dropping
> s->lock_fd.
Oops! I'm dequeuing the patch for now. Also, getting rid of s->lock_fd
sounds good!
I wonder if we can give this some test coverage, too, so that we'll
notice the breakage earlier next time. Maybe we can check from Python
which bits are locked?
Kevin