On Fri, 08/10 14:14, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 18.07.2018 um 10:43 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> > If we know we've already locked the bytes, don't do it again; similarly
> > don't unlock a byte if we haven't locked it. This doesn't change the
> > behavior, but fixes a corner case explained below.
> >
> > Libvirt had an error handling bug that an image can get its (ownership,
> > file mode, SELinux) permissions changed (RHBZ 1584982) by mistake behind
> > QEMU. Specifically, an image in use by Libvirt VM has:
> >
> > $ ls -lhZ b.img
> > -rw-r--r--. qemu qemu system_u:object_r:svirt_image_t:s0:c600,c690 b.img
> >
> > Trying to attach it a second time won't work because of image locking.
> > And after the error, it becomes:
> >
> > $ ls -lhZ b.img
> > -rw-r--r--. root root system_u:object_r:virt_image_t:s0 b.img
> >
> > Then, we won't be able to do OFD lock operations with the existing fd.
> > In other words, the code such as in blk_detach_dev:
> >
> > blk_set_perm(blk, 0, BLK_PERM_ALL, &error_abort);
> >
> > can abort() QEMU, out of environmental changes.
> >
> > This patch is an easy fix to this and the change is regardlessly
> > reasonable, so do it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > block/file-posix.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/block/file-posix.c b/block/file-posix.c
> > index 60af4b3d51..45d44c9947 100644
> > --- a/block/file-posix.c
> > +++ b/block/file-posix.c
> > @@ -680,23 +680,28 @@ typedef enum {
> > * file; if @unlock == true, also unlock the unneeded bytes.
> > * @shared_perm_lock_bits is the mask of all permissions that are NOT
> > shared.
> > */
> > -static int raw_apply_lock_bytes(int fd,
> > +static int raw_apply_lock_bytes(BDRVRawState *s, int fd,
> > uint64_t perm_lock_bits,
> > uint64_t shared_perm_lock_bits,
> > bool unlock, Error **errp)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > int i;
> > + uint64_t locked_perm, locked_shared_perm;
> > +
> > + locked_perm = s ? s->perm : 0;
> > + locked_shared_perm = s ? ~s->shared_perm & BLK_PERM_ALL : 0;
>
> For the s == NULL case, using 0 is okay for locking because we will
> always consider the bit as previously unlocked, so we will lock it.
>
> For unlocking, however, we'll also see it as previously unlocked, so we
> will never actually unlock anything any more.
>
> Am I missing something?
You are right. Though s == NULL only happens in raw_co_create and the fd will be
closed before the function returns, I agree for the correctness of this function
it's better to do a blanket unlock when unlocking. Will respin.
Fam
