aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/block.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorVladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>2019-02-23 22:20:40 +0300
committerKevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>2019-02-25 15:03:19 +0100
commitf962e96150e9c6a41e26caeaf93a65ec5b755607 (patch)
tree0043e65f73d0ada51a7230afeb0ad111a9dd3dc2 /block.c
parent2f30b7c377fa9a7dfbaf6eed56a07be7953e509e (diff)
block: fix bdrv_check_perm for non-tree subgraph
bdrv_check_perm in it's recursion checks each node in context of new permissions for one parent, because of nature of DFS. It works well, while children subgraph of top-most updated node is a tree, i.e. it doesn't have any kind of loops. But if we have a loop (not oriented, of course), i.e. we have two different ways from top-node to some child-node, then bdrv_check_perm will do wrong thing: top | \ | | v v A B | | v v node It will once check new permissions of node in context of new A permissions and old B permissions and once visa-versa. It's a wrong way and may lead to corruption of permission system. We may start with no-permissions and all-shared for both A->node and B->node relations and finish up with non shared write permission for both ways. The following commit will add a test, which shows this bug. To fix this situation, let's really set BdrvChild permissions during bdrv_check_perm procedure. And we are happy here, as check-perm is already written in transaction manner, so we just need to restore backed-up permissions in _abort. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'block.c')
-rw-r--r--block.c27
1 files changed, 26 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
index bb4bf1237c..16d59e0b32 100644
--- a/block.c
+++ b/block.c
@@ -1954,13 +1954,32 @@ static int bdrv_child_check_perm(BdrvChild *c, BlockReopenQueue *q,
ret = bdrv_check_update_perm(c->bs, q, perm, shared, ignore_children, errp);
g_slist_free(ignore_children);
- return ret;
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ if (!c->has_backup_perm) {
+ c->has_backup_perm = true;
+ c->backup_perm = c->perm;
+ c->backup_shared_perm = c->shared_perm;
+ }
+ /*
+ * Note: it's OK if c->has_backup_perm was already set, as we can find the
+ * same child twice during check_perm procedure
+ */
+
+ c->perm = perm;
+ c->shared_perm = shared;
+
+ return 0;
}
static void bdrv_child_set_perm(BdrvChild *c, uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared)
{
uint64_t cumulative_perms, cumulative_shared_perms;
+ c->has_backup_perm = false;
+
c->perm = perm;
c->shared_perm = shared;
@@ -1971,6 +1990,12 @@ static void bdrv_child_set_perm(BdrvChild *c, uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared)
static void bdrv_child_abort_perm_update(BdrvChild *c)
{
+ if (c->has_backup_perm) {
+ c->perm = c->backup_perm;
+ c->shared_perm = c->backup_shared_perm;
+ c->has_backup_perm = false;
+ }
+
bdrv_abort_perm_update(c->bs);
}