Currently taking an internal inactive snapshot with a disk excluded from
snapshot using snapshot="no" will fail with error "Disk device '%s' does
not support snapshotting".
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Shirokovskiy <nshirokovskiy@virtuozzo.com>
---
src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 14 ++++++++------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
index 469942d201..6a70b72760 100644
--- a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
+++ b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
@@ -6860,11 +6860,12 @@ qemuDomainSnapshotWriteMetadata(virDomainObj *vm,
static int
qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw(virQEMUDriver *driver,
virDomainDef *def,
- const char *name,
+ virDomainMomentObj *snap,
const char *op,
bool try_all,
int ndisks)
{
+ virDomainSnapshotDef *snapdef = virDomainSnapshotObjGetDef(snap);
const char *qemuimgbin;
size_t i;
bool skipped = false;
@@ -6877,11 +6878,12 @@ qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw(virQEMUDriver *driver,
for (i = 0; i < ndisks; i++) {
g_autoptr(virCommand) cmd = virCommandNewArgList(qemuimgbin, "snapshot",
- op, name, NULL);
+ op, snap->def->name, NULL);
int format = virDomainDiskGetFormat(def->disks[i]);
/* FIXME: we also need to handle LVM here */
- if (def->disks[i]->device != VIR_DOMAIN_DISK_DEVICE_DISK)
+ if (def->disks[i]->device != VIR_DOMAIN_DISK_DEVICE_DISK ||
+ snapdef->disks[i].snapshot == VIR_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_LOCATION_NONE)
continue;
if (!virStorageSourceIsLocalStorage(def->disks[i]->src)) {
@@ -6903,7 +6905,7 @@ qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw(virQEMUDriver *driver,
} else if (STREQ(op, "-c") && i) {
/* We must roll back partial creation by deleting
* all earlier snapshots. */
- qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw(driver, def, name,
+ qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw(driver, def, snap,
"-d", false, i);
}
virReportError(VIR_ERR_OPERATION_INVALID,
@@ -6923,7 +6925,7 @@ qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw(virQEMUDriver *driver,
} else if (STREQ(op, "-c") && i) {
/* We must roll back partial creation by deleting
* all earlier snapshots. */
- qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw(driver, def, name,
+ qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw(driver, def, snap,
"-d", false, i);
}
return -1;
@@ -6942,7 +6944,7 @@ qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2(virQEMUDriver *driver,
const char *op,
bool try_all)
{
- return qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw(driver, def, snap->def->name,
+ return qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw(driver, def, snap,
op, try_all, def->ndisks);
}
--
2.31.1
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:38:01 +0300, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: > Currently taking an internal inactive snapshot with a disk excluded from > snapshot using snapshot="no" will fail with error "Disk device '%s' does > not support snapshotting". The idea for internal snapshots since we wanted them to behave the same as they do with 'savevm' is that you can't actually exclude a disk from the snapshot. Could you elaborate how you expect this to co-operate with live internal snapshots?
ср, 16 февр. 2022 г. в 11:58, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com>: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:38:01 +0300, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: > > Currently taking an internal inactive snapshot with a disk excluded from > > snapshot using snapshot="no" will fail with error "Disk device '%s' does > > not support snapshotting". > > The idea for internal snapshots since we wanted them to behave the same > as they do with 'savevm' is that you can't actually exclude a disk from > the snapshot. > > Could you elaborate how you expect this to co-operate with live internal > snapshots? > > I have an issue with readonly usb raw disk. Making internal snapshot of an active domain is possible in this case if I exclude the disk from snapshot explicitly or implicitly. However in case of inactive domain snapshot fails with the above error. So I guess we should allow this case. So maybe we should check for readonly property of the disk instead? On snapshot creation there will be no difference as check in virDomainSnapshotAlignDisks will fail for non readonly disks. Yet it makes more sense to me to check snapdef disk because qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw is only to call qemu-img and the decision about the disk set is not its concern. Also the function is used on snapshot reverting/deletion and we want to base on snapdef again and not the current state of readonly attribute on disk. However it is not clear to me why there should be parity between active and inactive snapshot in terms of possible disk sets. We have constraint on set in case of active snapshot just due to API limitations. What are the reasons to mimic this set for inactive snapshot? Nikolay
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 15:33:57 +0300, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: > ср, 16 февр. 2022 г. в 11:58, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com>: > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:38:01 +0300, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: > > > Currently taking an internal inactive snapshot with a disk excluded from > > > snapshot using snapshot="no" will fail with error "Disk device '%s' does > > > not support snapshotting". > > > > The idea for internal snapshots since we wanted them to behave the same > > as they do with 'savevm' is that you can't actually exclude a disk from > > the snapshot. > > > > Could you elaborate how you expect this to co-operate with live internal > > snapshots? > > > > > I have an issue with readonly usb raw disk. Making internal snapshot of an > active domain > is possible in this case if I exclude the disk from snapshot explicitly or > implicitly. Well, yeah, you can set it as explicitly excluded since it would be excluded implicitly. The other way should not be possible. > However in case of inactive domain snapshot fails with the above error. So > I guess > we should allow this case. > > So maybe we should check for readonly property of the disk instead? On > snapshot creation > there will be no difference as check in virDomainSnapshotAlignDisks will > fail for non > readonly disks. [...] > Yet it makes more sense to me to check snapdef disk > because qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw > is only to call qemu-img and the decision about the disk set is not its > concern. Also > the function is used on snapshot reverting/deletion and we want to base > on snapdef again and not the current state of readonly attribute on disk. Okay, so the problem isn't actually with the code in this patch, because virDomainSnapshotAlignDisks already ensures that the snapshot wouldn't be done under the same conditions as with the live snapshots. It's the commit message that is misleading because you didn't at all mention that the disk was readonly and thus wouldn not take part in the snapshot anyway. Thus the code you are changing is correctly addressing the bug, where the offline snapshotting function is attempting to take the snapshot of the readonly disk. I suggest the following commit message: 'qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw' doesn't properly handle the 'VIR_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_LOCATION_NONE' setting and thus doesn't skip disks which were excluded from the snapshot due to being read-only. With that commit message you can use: Reviewed-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com> > However it is not clear to me why there should be parity between active and > inactive > snapshot in terms of possible disk sets. We have constraint on set in case > of active > snapshot just due to API limitations. What are the reasons to mimic this > set for inactive > snapshot? It minimizes the state matrix and possible corner cases especially since the old qemu impl is not flexible in handling partial snapshots.
ср, 16 февр. 2022 г. в 15:55, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com>: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 15:33:57 +0300, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: > > ср, 16 февр. 2022 г. в 11:58, Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com>: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:38:01 +0300, Nikolay Shirokovskiy wrote: > > > > Currently taking an internal inactive snapshot with a disk excluded > from > > > > snapshot using snapshot="no" will fail with error "Disk device '%s' > does > > > > not support snapshotting". > > > > > > The idea for internal snapshots since we wanted them to behave the same > > > as they do with 'savevm' is that you can't actually exclude a disk from > > > the snapshot. > > > > > > Could you elaborate how you expect this to co-operate with live > internal > > > snapshots? > > > > > > > > I have an issue with readonly usb raw disk. Making internal snapshot of > an > > active domain > > is possible in this case if I exclude the disk from snapshot explicitly > or > > implicitly. > > Well, yeah, you can set it as explicitly excluded since it would be > excluded implicitly. The other way should not be possible. > > > However in case of inactive domain snapshot fails with the above error. > So > > I guess > > we should allow this case. > > > > So maybe we should check for readonly property of the disk instead? On > > snapshot creation > > there will be no difference as check in virDomainSnapshotAlignDisks will > > fail for non > > readonly disks. > > [...] > > > Yet it makes more sense to me to check snapdef disk > > because qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw > > is only to call qemu-img and the decision about the disk set is not its > > concern. Also > > the function is used on snapshot reverting/deletion and we want to base > > on snapdef again and not the current state of readonly attribute on disk. > > Okay, so the problem isn't actually with the code in this patch, because > virDomainSnapshotAlignDisks already ensures that the snapshot wouldn't > be done under the same conditions as with the live snapshots. > > It's the commit message that is misleading because you didn't at all > mention that the disk was readonly and thus wouldn not take part in the > snapshot anyway. > > Thus the code you are changing is correctly addressing the bug, where > the offline snapshotting function is attempting to take the snapshot of > the readonly disk. > > I suggest the following commit message: > > 'qemuDomainSnapshotForEachQcow2Raw' doesn't properly handle the > 'VIR_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_LOCATION_NONE' setting and thus doesn't skip disks > which were excluded from the snapshot due to being read-only. > > > With that commit message you can use: > > Reviewed-by: Peter Krempa <pkrempa@redhat.com> > Actually I was not aware of all the details at that moment and just occasionally the patch happened to be correct. So thanx for the review! Nikolay
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.