Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v3 3/9] block: Require auto-read-only for existing fallbacks

[Eric Blake]

On 10/17/18 11:41 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Some block drivers have traditionally changed their node to read-only
> mode without asking the user. This behaviour has been marked deprecated
> since 2.11, expecting users to provide an explicit read-only=on option.
>
> Now that we have auto-read-only=on, enable these drivers to make use of
> the option.
>
> This is the only use of bdrv_set_read_only(), so we can make it a bit
> more specific and turn it into a bdrv_apply_auto_read_only() that is
> more convenient for drivers to use.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
> ---

> +/*
> + * Called by a driver that can only provide a read-only image.
> + *
> + * Returns 0 if the node is already read-only or it could switch the node to
> + * read-only because BDRV_O_AUTO_RDONLY is set.
> + *
> + * Returns -EACCES if the node is read-write and BDRV_O_AUTO_RDONLY is not set
> + * or bdrv_can_set_read_only() forbids making the node read-only. If @errmsg
> + * is not NULL, it is used as the error message for the Error object.

Works for me.

> +++ b/block/rbd.c
> @@ -780,16 +780,10 @@ static int qemu_rbd_open(BlockDriverState *bs, QDict 
> *options, int flags,
>       /* If we are using an rbd snapshot, we must be r/o, otherwise
>        * leave as-is */
>       if (s->snap != NULL) {
> -        if (!bdrv_is_read_only(bs)) {
> -            error_report("Opening rbd snapshots without an explicit "
> -                         "read-only=on option is deprecated. Future versions "
> -                         "will refuse to open the image instead of "
> -                         "automatically marking the image read-only.");
> -            r = bdrv_set_read_only(bs, true, &local_err);
> -            if (r < 0) {
> -                error_propagate(errp, local_err);
> -                goto failed_open;
> -            }
> +        r = bdrv_apply_auto_read_only(bs, "rbd snapshots are read-only", errp);
> +        if (r < 0) {
> +            rbd_close(s->image);
> +            goto failed_open;

That rbd_close() is an independent bugfix.  Should probably be split to 
a separate commit, or at a minimum called out in the commit message as 
intentional.

Actually, is it really needed to prevent a leak, or does the existing 
rados_shutdown() in failed_open already implicitly cover the actions of 
rbd_close()?

With the RBD issue touched up,
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>

--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org