On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 14:25:43 +0200, Kirill Shchetiniuk via Devel wrote:
When the new storage was created using virsh with --validate option following errors occurred:
# virsh vol-create default --file vol-def.xml --validate error: Failed to create vol from vol-def.xml error: unsupported flags (0x4) in function virStorageVolDefParseXML
and after virStorageVolDefParse fix:
# virsh vol-create default --file vol-def.xml --validate error: Failed to create vol from vol-def.xml error: unsupported flags (0x4) in function storageBackendCreateQemuImg
Clear the VIR_STORAGE_VOL_CREATE_VALIDATE flag before virStorageVolDefParseXML and backend->buildVol (traces down to storageBackendCreateQemuImg) calls, as the XML schema validation is already complete within previous steps and there is no validation later.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Shchetiniuk <kshcheti@redhat.com> --- NEWS.rst | 5 +++++ src/conf/storage_conf.c | 2 ++ src/storage/storage_driver.c | 4 +++- 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/NEWS.rst b/NEWS.rst index e2dc4e508b..dd345bad7b 100644 --- a/NEWS.rst +++ b/NEWS.rst @@ -28,6 +28,11 @@ v11.3.0 (unreleased)
* **Bug fixes**
+ * storage: Fix new volume creation + + No more errors occur when new storage volume is being created + using ``vol-create`` with ``--validate`` option.
Changes to NEWS must be always in a separate patch. Mainly you definitely do not want to have conflicts when backporting patches, where NEWS definitely do not match.
v11.2.0 (2025-04-01) ==================== diff --git a/src/conf/storage_conf.c b/src/conf/storage_conf.c index 68842004b7..f6d804bb39 100644 --- a/src/conf/storage_conf.c +++ b/src/conf/storage_conf.c @@ -1409,6 +1409,8 @@ virStorageVolDefParse(virStoragePoolDef *pool, "volume", &ctxt, "storagevol.rng", validate))) return NULL;
+ flags &= ~(VIR_STORAGE_VOL_CREATE_VALIDATE);
This function gets VIR_VOL_XML_PARSE_VALIDATE. In storageVolCreateXML VIR_STORAGE_VOL_CREATE_VALIDATE is converted to VIR_VOL_XML_PARSE_VALIDATE. Where did VIR_STORAGE_VOL_CREATE_VALIDATE leak from? Either way this hunk is incorrect as this flag should not get here and the caller needs to be fixed.