Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] file-posix: Skip effectiveless OFD lock operations

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

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 <famz@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?

Kevin