Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.9] block: Don't check permissions for copy on read

[Max Reitz]

On 07.04.2017 15:53, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/07/2017 05:32 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> The assertion is currently failing. We can't require callers to have
>> write permissions when all they are doing is a read, so comment it out.
>> Add a FIXME comment in the code so that the check is re-enabled when
>> copy on read is refactored into its own filter driver.
>>
>> Reported-by: Richard W.M. Jones <address@hidden>
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  block/io.c | 9 ++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
>> index 2709a70..7321dda 100644
>> --- a/block/io.c
>> +++ b/block/io.c
>> @@ -945,7 +945,14 @@ static int coroutine_fn 
>> bdrv_co_do_copy_on_readv(BdrvChild *child,
>>      size_t skip_bytes;
>>      int ret;
>>  
>> -    assert(child->perm & (BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED | BLK_PERM_WRITE));
>> +    /* FIXME We cannot require callers to have write permissions when all 
>> they
>> +     * are doing is a read request. If we did things right, write 
>> permissions
>> +     * would be obtained anyway, but internally by the copy-on-read code. As
>> +     * long as it is implemented here rather than in a separat filter 
>> driver,
> 
> s/separat/separate/
> 
>> +     * the copy-on-read code doesn't have its own BdrvChild, however, for 
>> which
>> +     * it could request permissions. Therefore we have to bypass the 
>> permission
>> +     * system for the moment. */
>> +    // assert(child->perm & (BLK_PERM_WRITE_UNCHANGED | BLK_PERM_WRITE));
> 
> Makes checkpatch.pl unhappy - but that's intentional.

Is it? I don't know. But not that I mind, so for good measure:

Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>

> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature