block: Ignore loosening perm restrictions failures
We generally assume that loosening permission restrictions can never
fail. We have seen in the past that this assumption is wrong. This has
led to crashes because we generally pass &error_abort when loosening
permissions.
However, a failure in such a case should actually be handled in quite
the opposite way: It is very much not fatal, so qemu may report it, but
still consider the operation successful. The only realistic problem is
that qemu may then retain permissions and thus locks on images it
actually does not require. But again, that is not fatal.
To implement this behavior, we make all functions that change
permissions and that pass &error_abort to the initiating function
(bdrv_check_perm() or bdrv_child_check_perm()) evaluate the
@loosen_restrictions value introduced in the previous patch. If it is
true and an error did occur, we abort the permission update, discard the
error, and instead report success to the caller.
bdrv_child_try_set_perm() itself does not pass &error_abort, but it is
the only public function to change permissions. As such, callers may
pass &error_abort to it, expecting dropping permission restrictions to
never fail.
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
index 1b10a5c..c139540 100644
--- a/block.c
+++ b/block.c
@@ -2121,11 +2121,26 @@
int bdrv_child_try_set_perm(BdrvChild *c, uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared,
Error **errp)
{
+ Error *local_err = NULL;
int ret;
+ bool tighten_restrictions;
- ret = bdrv_child_check_perm(c, NULL, perm, shared, NULL, NULL, errp);
+ ret = bdrv_child_check_perm(c, NULL, perm, shared, NULL,
+ &tighten_restrictions, &local_err);
if (ret < 0) {
bdrv_child_abort_perm_update(c);
+ if (tighten_restrictions) {
+ error_propagate(errp, local_err);
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * Our caller may intend to only loosen restrictions and
+ * does not expect this function to fail. Errors are not
+ * fatal in such a case, so we can just hide them from our
+ * caller.
+ */
+ error_free(local_err);
+ ret = 0;
+ }
return ret;
}
@@ -2308,10 +2323,19 @@
/* Update permissions for old node. This is guaranteed to succeed
* because we're just taking a parent away, so we're loosening
* restrictions. */
+ bool tighten_restrictions;
+ int ret;
+
bdrv_get_cumulative_perm(old_bs, &perm, &shared_perm);
- bdrv_check_perm(old_bs, NULL, perm, shared_perm, NULL,
- NULL, &error_abort);
- bdrv_set_perm(old_bs, perm, shared_perm);
+ ret = bdrv_check_perm(old_bs, NULL, perm, shared_perm, NULL,
+ &tighten_restrictions, NULL);
+ assert(tighten_restrictions == false);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ /* We only tried to loosen restrictions, so errors are not fatal */
+ bdrv_abort_perm_update(old_bs);
+ } else {
+ bdrv_set_perm(old_bs, perm, shared_perm);
+ }
/* When the parent requiring a non-default AioContext is removed, the
* node moves back to the main AioContext */
@@ -5386,6 +5410,7 @@
static int bdrv_inactivate_recurse(BlockDriverState *bs)
{
BdrvChild *child, *parent;
+ bool tighten_restrictions;
uint64_t perm, shared_perm;
int ret;
@@ -5422,8 +5447,15 @@
/* Update permissions, they may differ for inactive nodes */
bdrv_get_cumulative_perm(bs, &perm, &shared_perm);
- bdrv_check_perm(bs, NULL, perm, shared_perm, NULL, NULL, &error_abort);
- bdrv_set_perm(bs, perm, shared_perm);
+ ret = bdrv_check_perm(bs, NULL, perm, shared_perm, NULL,
+ &tighten_restrictions, NULL);
+ assert(tighten_restrictions == false);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ /* We only tried to loosen restrictions, so errors are not fatal */
+ bdrv_abort_perm_update(bs);
+ } else {
+ bdrv_set_perm(bs, perm, shared_perm);
+ }
/* Recursively inactivate children */
