On 27.02.2017 13:28, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 22.02.2017 um 15:04 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>>> @@ -1390,6 +1565,7 @@ BdrvChild *bdrv_root_attach_child(BlockDriverState
>>> *child_bs,
>>>
>>> ret = bdrv_check_update_perm(child_bs, perm, shared_perm, NULL, errp);
>>> if (ret < 0) {
>>> + bdrv_abort_perm_update(child_bs);
>>> return NULL;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> This function doesn't call bdrv_set_perm(). Intentional?
>
> Yes, intentional. It calls it indirectly via bdrv_replace_child(). I'll
> add a comment.Right, bdrv_replace_child() invokes bdrv_update_perm() which invokes bdrv_set_perm(). However, that means that there shouldn't be any caller of bdrv_replace_child() which doesn't call bdrv_check_perm() before; some don't do that, though, e.g. change_parent_backing_link(). Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
