Some error messages contain ambiguous representations of the 'node-name'
parameter. This can be particularly confusing when exchanging QMP
messages (C = client, S = server):
C: {"execute": "block_resize", "arguments": { "device": "my_file", "size": 26843545600 }}
S: {"error": {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "Cannot find device=my_file nor node_name="}}
^^^^^^^^^
This error message suggests one could send a message with a key called
'node_name':
C: {"execute": "block_resize", "arguments": { "node_name": "my_file", "size": 26843545600 }}
^^^^^^^^^
but using the underscore is actually incorrect, the parameter should be
'node-name':
S: {"error": {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "Parameter 'node_name' is unexpected"}}
This behavior was uncovered in bz1651437, but I ended up going down a
rabbit hole looking for other areas where this miscommunication might
occur and changing those accordingly as well.
Fixes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1651437
Signed-off-by: Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210305151929.1947331-2-ckuehl@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Without any of HEAD^ or HEAD^^ applied, qemu will most likely crash on
the qemu-io invocation, for a variety of immediate reasons. The
underlying problem is generally a use-after-free access into
backup-top's BlockCopyState.
With only HEAD^ applied, qemu-io will run into an EIO (which is not
capture by the output, but you can see that the qemu-io invocation will
be accepted (i.e., qemu-io will run) in contrast to the reference
output, where the node name cannot be found), and qemu will then crash
in query-named-block-nodes: bdrv_get_allocated_file_size() detects
backup-top to be a filter and passes the request through to its child.
However, after bdrv_backup_top_drop(), that child is NULL, so the
recursive call crashes.
With HEAD^^ applied, this test should pass.
Signed-off-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20210219153348.41861-4-mreitz@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
The test case forgot to specify the null-co size for the target node.
When adding a check to backup that both sizes match, this would fail
because of the size mismatch and not the behaviour that the test really
wanted to test.
Fixes: a541fcc27c
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20200430142755.315494-2-kwolf@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
