Am 22.02.2017 um 15:31 hat Max Reitz geschrieben: > On 21.02.2017 15:58, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Now that all block drivers with children tell us what permissions they > > need from each of their children, bdrv_attach_child() can use this > > information and make the right requirements while trying to attach new > > children. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <[email protected]> > > --- > > block.c | 8 ++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c > > index 1c5f211..054e6f0 100644 > > --- a/block.c > > +++ b/block.c > > @@ -1659,10 +1659,14 @@ BdrvChild *bdrv_attach_child(BlockDriverState > > *parent_bs, > > Error **errp) > > { > > BdrvChild *child; > > + uint64_t perm, shared_perm; > > + > > + assert(parent_bs->drv); > > + parent_bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm(parent_bs, NULL, child_role, > > + 0, BLK_PERM_ALL, &perm, &shared_perm); > > Another Second Thought™: Why do we request no permissions for the new > child here? Seems weird to me. Shouldn't the caller specify the > necessary permissions and what can be shared?
Actually not the caller, but we should calculate the cumulative permissions of parent_bs, like in bdrv_update_perm(). Kevin
pgpYq0G6ZCAWr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
