On 01.10.2016 19:26, Max Reitz wrote:
On 30.09.2016 12:53, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Auto loading bitmaps are bitmaps in Qcow2, with AUTO flag set. They are
...
+ goto fail;
+ }
+
+ /* loop is safe because next entry offset is calculated after conversion to
Should it be s/safe/unsafe/?
loop is safe. _unsafe is related to absence of assert in a loop, as it
loops through BE data. Bad wording, I'll change it somehow..
+ * cpu format */
+ for_each_bitmap_dir_entry_unsafe(e, dir, size) {
+ if ((uint8_t *)(e + 1) > dir_end) {
+ goto broken_dir;
+ }
+
+ bitmap_dir_entry_to_cpu(e);
+
+ if ((uint8_t *)next_dir_entry(e) > dir_end) {
+ goto broken_dir;
+ }
+
+ if (e->extra_data_size != 0) {
+ error_setg(errp, "Can't load bitmap '%.*s' from '%s':"
+ "extra data not supported.", e->name_size,
Full stop again.
Also, I'm not quite sure why you give the device/node name here. You
don't do that anywhere else and I think if we want to emit the
information where something failed, it should be added at some previous
point in the call chain.
For example, how? As I understand, I can emit it only by error_setg, so
actually it would be better to add node and bitmap name to all
error_setg in the code.. or create helper function for it.
+ dir_entry_name_notcstr(e),
+ bdrv_get_device_or_node_name(bs));
+ goto fail;
+ }
+ }
...
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ goto fail;
+ }
+ }
+ s->bitmap_directory_offset = new_offset;
+ s->bitmap_directory_size = new_size;
+ s->nb_bitmaps = new_nb_bitmaps;
+
+ ret = update_header_sync(bs);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ goto fail;
+ }
+
+ if (old_size) {
+ qcow2_free_clusters(bs, old_offset, old_size, QCOW2_DISCARD_ALWAYS);
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+
+fail:
+ if (new_offset > 0) {
+ qcow2_free_clusters(bs, new_offset, new_size, QCOW2_DISCARD_ALWAYS);
+ s->bitmap_directory_offset = old_offset;
+ s->bitmap_directory_size = old_size;
+ s->nb_bitmaps = old_nb_bitmaps;
+ s->autoclear_features = old_autocl;
Why are you restoring the autoclear features? From a quick glance I
can't see any code path that changes this field here, and if there is
one, it probably has a good reason to do so.
hmm.. it's an artefact from future). should be moved to later patch.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
