On Wed, 07/04 09:44, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 04.07.2018 um 08:13 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben: > > This was noticed by the new image fleecing tests case 222. The issue is > > apparent and we should just do the same right things as in > > bdrv_aligned_pwritev. > > > > Reported-by: John Snow <js...@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> > > > --- a/block/io.c > > +++ b/block/io.c > > @@ -2945,6 +2945,10 @@ static int coroutine_fn > > bdrv_co_copy_range_internal(BdrvChild *src, > > dst, dst_offset, > > bytes, flags); > > } > > + if (ret == 0) { > > + int64_t end_sector = DIV_ROUND_UP(dst_offset + bytes, > > BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE); > > + dst->bs->total_sectors = MAX(dst->bs->total_sectors, end_sector); > > + } > > I think it's time to extract this stuff to a common function. I was > already aware that a write request that extends the image isn't behaving > exactly the same as bdrv_co_truncate(), and this one is bound to diverge > from the other two instances as well. > > This is what bdrv_aligned_pwritev() does after the write: > > atomic_inc(&bs->write_gen); > bdrv_set_dirty(bs, offset, bytes); > > stat64_max(&bs->wr_highest_offset, offset + bytes); > > if (ret >= 0) { > bs->total_sectors = MAX(bs->total_sectors, end_sector); > ret = 0; > } > > Before the write, it also calls bs->before_write_notifiers. > > This is what bdrv_co_truncate() does after truncating the image: > > ret = refresh_total_sectors(bs, offset >> BDRV_SECTOR_BITS); > if (ret < 0) { > error_setg_errno(errp, -ret, "Could not refresh total sector count"); > } else { > offset = bs->total_sectors * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE; > } > bdrv_dirty_bitmap_truncate(bs, offset); > bdrv_parent_cb_resize(bs); > atomic_inc(&bs->write_gen); > > This means that we probably have at least the following bugs in > bdrv_co_copy_range_internal(): > > 1. bs->write_gen is not increased, a following flush is ignored > 2. Dirty bitmaps are not dirtied > 3. Dirty bitmaps are not resized when extending the image > 4. bs->wr_highest_offset is not adjusted correctly > 5. bs->total_sectors is not resized (the bug this patch fixes) > 6. The parent node isn't notified about an image size change > > Of these, 3. and 6. also seem to be bugs in bdrv_aligned_pwritev(). >
Indeed, great insight. I'll work on v2. Fam