On 4/10/19 10:24 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote: > You can reproduce this by passing an invalid filter-node-name (like > "1234") to block-commit. In this case the base image is put in > read-write mode but is never reset back to read-only. >
Is it worth iotest coverage?
> Signed-off-by: Alberto Garcia <be...@igalia.com>
> ---
> block/commit.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/block/commit.c b/block/commit.c
> index ba60fef58a..698eda1dfe 100644
> --- a/block/commit.c
> +++ b/block/commit.c
> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ fail:
> if (s->top) {
> blk_unref(s->top);
> }
> + if (s->base_read_only) {
> + bdrv_reopen_set_read_only(base, true, NULL);
> + }
> job_early_fail(&s->common.job);
> /* commit_top_bs has to be replaced after deleting the block job,
> * otherwise this would fail because of lack of permissions. */
>
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
