On 18.09.20 20:19, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > Do generic processing even for drivers which define .bdrv_check_perm > handler. It's needed for further preallocate filter: it will need to do > additional action on bdrv_check_perm, but don't want to reimplement > generic logic. > > The patch doesn't change existing behaviour: the only driver that > implements bdrv_check_perm is file-posix, but it never has any > children. > > Also, bdrv_set_perm() don't stop processing if driver has > .bdrv_set_perm handler as well. > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> > --- > block.c | 10 ++++++---- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c > index 9538af4884..165c2d3cb2 100644 > --- a/block.c > +++ b/block.c > @@ -1964,8 +1964,7 @@ static void bdrv_child_perm(BlockDriverState *bs, > BlockDriverState *child_bs, > /* > * Check whether permissions on this node can be changed in a way that > * @cumulative_perms and @cumulative_shared_perms are the new cumulative > - * permissions of all its parents. This involves checking whether all > necessary > - * permission changes to child nodes can be performed. > + * permissions of all its parents.
Why do you want to remove this sentence?
> *
> * Will set *tighten_restrictions to true if and only if new permissions
> have to
> * be taken or currently shared permissions are to be unshared. Otherwise,
> @@ -2047,8 +2046,11 @@ static int bdrv_check_perm(BlockDriverState *bs,
> BlockReopenQueue *q,
> }
>
> if (drv->bdrv_check_perm) {
> - return drv->bdrv_check_perm(bs, cumulative_perms,
> - cumulative_shared_perms, errp);
> + ret = drv->bdrv_check_perm(bs, cumulative_perms,
> + cumulative_shared_perms, errp);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + return ret;
> + }
> }
Sounds good. It’s also consistent with how bdrv_abort_perm_update() and
bdrv_set_perm() don’t return after calling the respective driver
functions, but always recurse to the children.
Max
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
