[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1] parallels: wrong call to bdrv_truncate

From: Kevin Wolf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1] parallels: wrong call to bdrv_truncate
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:32:59 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Am 29.03.2017 um 16:18 hat Denis V. Lunev geschrieben:
> On 03/29/2017 05:11 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 29.03.2017 um 15:53 hat Denis V. Lunev geschrieben:
> >> On 03/29/2017 01:41 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> >>> The question is what the contract of bdrv_truncate() is. I think "you
> >>> can only call this when you got resize permissions" is the clearest
> >>> interface, and the current code enforces it.
> >> but in the original patch I have made check exactly over this simple
> >> condition and you says that it was not accurate. If this is wrong, I'll be
> >> rejected later on with EACCESS and will still be on the safe side.
> >> Original patch just avoids the assert().
> > No, you checked BDRV_O_RESIZE in bs->open_flags, not BLK_PERM_RESIZE in
> > child->perm. If you checked for BLK_PERM_RESIZE, that would work (though
> > I still think that checking for read-only gets closer to the actual
> > intent).
> OK. That is clear now, I'll send a fixup.
> Thank you for the explanation.

Ok, thanks.

> >>>> Another thing, should we add assert like added into bdrv_co_pwritev,
> >>>> namely
> >>>>     assert(!(bs->open_flags & BDRV_O_INACTIVE));
> >>>> in the same place below access check.
> >>> You mean asserting that we have write permission? We already do that in
> >>> bdrv_aligned_pwritev(), which is called by bdrv_co_pwritev().
> >> I mean that we should disallow image change if it is disallowed
> >> by the contract. Current contract says that we can not change
> >> image content once BDRV_O_INACTIVE is set. Should we
> >> Do we have implicit rule that (child->perm & BLK_PERM_RESIZE)
> >> is set only when INACTIVE is not set?
> > Ah, you want to assert cleared BDRV_O_INACTIVE in bdrv_truncate()?
> > That sounds like a good idea to me.
> but this is for 2.10. I think it is too late to do that right now.

Yes, definitely for 2.10. If you like, you can already send a patch
anyway, I always have a block-next queue while we're in freeze.


reply via email to

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