Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH 7/7] iotests: Disable 126 for some vmdk subformats

[Max Reitz]

On 14.08.19 00:26, John Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/13/19 10:00 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 12.08.19 23:33, John Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/25/19 11:57 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>>>> Several vmdk subformats do not work with iotest 126, so disable them.
>>>>
>>>> (twoGbMaxExtentSparse actually should work, but fixing that is a bit
>>>> difficult.  The problem is that the vmdk descriptor file will contain a
>>>> referenc to "image:base.vmdk", which the block layer cannot open because
>>>
>>> reference
>>>
>>>> it does not know the protocol "image".  This is not trivial to solve,
>>>> because I suppose real protocols like "http://"; should be supported.
>>>> Making vmdk treat all paths with a potential protocol prefix that the
>>>> block layer does not recognize as plain files seems a bit weird,
>>>> though.  Ignoring this problem does not seem too bad.)
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>>  tests/qemu-iotests/126 | 6 ++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/126 b/tests/qemu-iotests/126
>>>> index 9b0dcf9255..8e55d7c843 100755
>>>> --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/126
>>>> +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/126
>>>> @@ -33,6 +33,12 @@ status=1        # failure is the default!
>>>>  
>>>>  # Needs backing file support
>>>>  _supported_fmt qcow qcow2 qed vmdk
>>>> +# (1) Flat vmdk images do not support backing files
>>>> +# (2) Split vmdk images simply fail this test right now.  Fixing that
>>>> +#     is left for another day.
>>>
>>> Which one? :)
>>
>> Hmmmm?  Fixing refers to #2.  #1 is not a bug or missing feature, it’s
>> just how it is.  (This test needs backing files, so...)
>>
>> If you mean “which are which“, then the ones with *Flat are flat images
>> (:-)), and the ones with twoGbMaxExtent* are split.
>>
> 
> "Which day" ;)
> 
>>>> +_unsupported_imgopts "subformat=monolithicFlat" \
>>>> +                     "subformat=twoGbMaxExtentFlat" \
>>>> +                     "subformat=twoGbMaxExtentSparse"
>>>>  # This is the default protocol (and we want to test the difference between
>>>>  # colons which separate a protocol prefix from the rest and colons which 
>>>> are
>>>>  # just part of the filename, so we cannot test protocols which require a 
>>>> prefix)
>>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly fails?
>>
>> Interestingly I only now noticed that the test passes with “vmdk: Use
>> bdrv_dirname() for relative extent paths” (patch 2) reverted...
>>
>>>                     Does the VMDK driver see `image:` and think it's a
>>> special filename it needs to handle and fails to do so?
>> No.  Whenever the block layer sees a parsee filename[1] with a colon
>> before a slash, it thinks everything before the colon is a protocol
>> prefix.  For example:
>>
> 
> Actually, I think we're on the same page here. I maybe meant to type
> "block layer" instead of "VMDK driver", but it does look like it does
> special processing on this sort of filename that breaks in this case.
> 
>> $ qemu-img info foo:bar
>> qemu-img: Could not open 'foo:bar': Unknown protocol 'foo'
>>
>> This test is precisely for this.  How can you specify an image filename
>> that has a colon in it (without using -blockdev)?  One way is to prepend
>> it with “./”, the other is “file:”.
>>
>> Now with split VMDKs, we must write something in the header file to
>> reference the extents.  What vmdk does for an image like
>> “image:foo.vmdk” is it writes “image:foo-s001.vmdk” there.
>>
>> When it tries to open that extent, what happens depends on whether
>> “vmdk: Use bdrv_dirname() for relative extent paths” (patch 2) is applied:
>>
>> --- Before that patch ---
>>
>> vmdk takes the descriptor filename, which, thanks to some magic in the
>> block layer, is always “./image:foo.vmdk”, even when you gave it as
>> “file:image:foo.vmdk” (the “file:” is stripped because it does nothing,
>> generally, and the “./” is then prepended because of the false protocol
>> prefix “image:”).
>>
>> It then invokes path_combine() with that path and the path given in the
>> descriptor file (“image:foo-s001.vmdk”).  This yields
>> “./image:foo-s001.vmdk”, which actually works.
>>
>> --- After that patch ---
>>
>> OK, what I messed up is that I just took the extent path to be an
>> absolute path if it has a protocol prefix.  (Because that’s how we
>> usually do it.)  Turns out that vmdk never did that, and path_combine()
>> actually completely ignores protocol prefixes in the relative filename.
>>
>> I suppose I could do the same and just drop the path_has_protocol() from
>> patch 2.  But that’d be a bit broken, as I wrote in the commit
>> message...  If the descriptor file refers to an extent on
>> “http://example.com/extent.vmdk”, I suppose that should not be
>> interpreted as a relative path, but actually work...
>>
>> But anyway, I guess if it’s a bit broken already, I might just keep it
>> that way.
>>
>>
>> tl;dr: Turns out patch 2 broke this test, because it (accidentally)
>> tried to fix something that I consider broken.  If I just keep it broken
>> (I didn’t know it was), this test will continue to work and probably
>> nobody will care because, well, it already is broken and nobody cares.
>>
> 
> So which kinda-broken thing are you making the case for? Are you
> re-spinning in light of your discovery or... are we fine with the state
> of things as they land here?
> 
> (Sorry, it wasn't clear to me which way you were leaning.)

I’m going to respin and drop the “path_has_protocol(fname)” condition
from patch 2.

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature