[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH 5/5] block: Simplify append_open_options()

From: Alberto Garcia
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH 5/5] block: Simplify append_open_options()
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 15:15:27 +0200
User-agent: Notmuch/0.18.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (i586-pc-linux-gnu)

On Tue 14 Aug 2018 02:08:26 PM CEST, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> > When you actually use that incorrect information, you've got a bug.
>> > Reopen with file=bar doesn't have to check whether 'file=bar' is in
>> > bs->options (because that may be outdated information), but whether
>> > the BdrvChild with the name 'file' points to a node called 'bar'.
>> Again, this is correct if we open the BDS with
>>   file.node-name=bar
>> and then we allow reopening it with
>>   file=bar
>> Different set of options, but the result still makes sense. For this
>> we need a specific check to verify that this is correct. For the
>> current behavior we don't need anything now: we only allow the exact
>> same option.
> That's yet another case and another reason why we want to check
> BdrvChild instead. If we take BlockdevOptions for blockdev-reopen, you
> need to put something there for nodes that you created inline
> originally, and just putting the node name there probably makes the
> most sense.
> Anyway, the case that I had in mind is the case where you removed a
> backing file with a block job:
>     base <- mid <- top
> You stream top into mid, so at the end of the job, mid goes away and
> base is the backing file of top. But since you opened top with
> backing=mid, that's still what you get when you look at bs->options.
>     base <- top
>             (backing=mid)
> If you now reopen top, and bdrv_reopen looks at bs->options to check
> whether the operation is valid, you must specify backing=mid instead
> of the correct backing=base so that reopen thinks it's unchanged.

Yes, that's correct, I'm aware of that problem.

>> >> After x-blockdev-reopen is ready, 'backing' will perhaps be the
>> >> first/only exception, because we'll be able to change it and the
>> >> previous value doesn't matter.
>> >
>> > I certainly hope that it will not be the only kind of node references
>> > that you can change. Adding/removing filter nodes requires to be able
>> > to change more or less any kind of node references. But we'll see.
>> No, but anything that we allow changing has to be done on a case-by-case
>> basis. You can't simply allow changing any child reference, the specific
>> driver has to be modified in order to allow that.
>> Until the driver is changed, the current behavior prevails: if an option
>> was modified, we return an error.
> Makes sense to err on the safe side, though I expect that most drivers
> don't need to do much more than just allowing the switch.
> Maybe, if we want to keep things a bit safer, what we can do is check
> that the same node is addressed when you skip all filters.

The proper fix could be something alone those lines, yes. I'll give it a
try and see what happens.

This would be a separate patch, though, the ones that I sent shouldn't
need changes.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]