On 05/15/2018 10:12 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 08:47:58 -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>> Rather than having storageBackendCreateQemuImgCheckEncryption
>> perform the virStorageGenerateQcowEncryption, let's just do that
>> earlier during storageBackendCreateQemuImg so that the check
>> helper is just a check helper rather doing something different
>> based on whether the format is qcow[2] or raw based encryption.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> src/storage/storage_util.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/storage/storage_util.c b/src/storage/storage_util.c
>> index 37a649d17b..64d4d1d7d2 100644
>> --- a/src/storage/storage_util.c
>> +++ b/src/storage/storage_util.c
>> @@ -901,10 +901,10 @@ storageBackendCreateQemuImgCheckEncryption(int format,
>> _("too many secrets for qcow encryption"));
>> return -1;
>> }
>> - if (enc->format == VIR_STORAGE_ENCRYPTION_FORMAT_DEFAULT ||
>> - enc->nsecrets == 0) {
>> - if (virStorageGenerateQcowEncryption(vol) < 0)
>> - return -1;
>> + if (enc->nsecrets == 0) {
>> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, "%s",
>> + _("no secret provided for qcow encryption"));
>> + return -1;
>> }
>> } else if (format == VIR_STORAGE_FILE_RAW) {
>> if (enc->format != VIR_STORAGE_ENCRYPTION_FORMAT_LUKS) {
>> @@ -1309,6 +1309,26 @@ storageBackendCreateQemuImgSecretPath(virStoragePoolObjPtr pool,
>
> storageBackendCreateQemuImgCheckEncryption is called from three
> externally accessible call chains paths:
>
> 1) via multiple apis and then storageBackendCreateQemuImg
>
> This one is fixed below.
>
>
> 2) via testCompareXMLToArgvFiles->virStorageBackendCreateQemuImgCmdFromVol
>
> This may not be necessary to be fixed.
>
>
> 3) via virStorageBackendVolResizeLocal->storageBackendResizeQemuImg
>
> This one looks like a regression.
>
[turned off wrapping to avoid nasty looking cut-n-paste from code]
Hmmm... let's see...
storageBackendResizeQemuImg()
{
...
if (vol->target.encryption) {
...
storageBackendLoadDefaultSecrets(vol);
if (storageBackendCreateQemuImgCheckEncryption(vol->target.format,
type, vol) < 0)
goto cleanup;
...
Leading us to:
storageBackendLoadDefaultSecrets()
{
...
if (!vol->target.encryption || vol->target.encryption->nsecrets != 0)
return 0;
...
otherwise we fill in nsecrets/secrets with the secret for the volume (if
found), meaning when we leave we'd have nsecrets == 1. Because nsecrets == 1
that means the CheckEncryption will not attempt to create a secret.
If a secret for the volume is not found, then yes we leave with nsecrets == 0
and seemingly would/could have a regression.
But let's consider the ramifications and that we created the volume with
a specific secret, but we could not find that secret later on when someone
went to resize the volume.
Currently if this were a luks volume, then the resize would fail in the
CheckEncryption because there is no secret. However, for a qcow volume
we'd create a new secret!
With the new code we'd generate the same failure that luks has but with
a qcow specific error message instead of regenerating a new secret for
resize that wasn't used for create.
So is the new model a regression or a fix?
Tks -
John
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
