Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v2 3/8] block: Require auto-read-only for existing fallbacks

[Eric Blake]

On 10/16/18 9:12 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 12.10.2018 um 19:02 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> > On 10/12/18 6:55 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > Some block drivers have traditionally changed their node to read-only
> > > mode without asking the user. This behaviour has been marked deprecated
> > > since 2.11, expecting users to provide an explicit read-only=on option.
> > >
> > > Now that we have auto-read-only=on, enable these drivers to make use of
> > > the option.
> > >
> > > This is the only use of bdrv_set_read_only(), so we can make it a bit
> > > more specific and turn it into a bdrv_apply_auto_read_only() that is
> > > more convenient for drivers to use.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
> > > ---

> > Worth documenting the -EINVAL (copy-on-read prevents setting read-only)
> > failure as well?  (The -EPERM failure of bdrv_can_set_read_only() is not
> > reachable, since this new function never clears readonly).
>
> In fact, -EINVAL and the error string from bdrv_can_set_read_only() may
> be confusing because the user didn't explicitly request a read-only
> image. Maybe it would be better to just turn this case into -EACCES with
> the same error message.
>
> What do you think?

So, how would it trigger in practice? The user requests a copy-on-read 
action with the BDS as destination (thus the BDS must be writable, and 
can't be set to readonly); they omitted read-only (because they know 
they want copy-on-read); they supplied auto-read-only=true (because they 
are lazy and want to always use that flag if it is available); but the 
particular BDS they selected is not writable (whether read-only file 
system, read-only NBD server, etc).  In short, we can't grant them 
read-write to begin with, and can't gracefully fall back to read-only 
because it would violate their request for copy-on-read, so as long as 
we give them a sane error message about their request being impossible, 
we're good.  Yes, -EACCES sounds reasonable, if you want to code that in.

--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org