qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v3 0/4] fix image fleecing


From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v3 0/4] fix image fleecing
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 16:41:50 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0

06.07.2018 10:17, Fam Zheng wrote:
On Thu, 07/05 10:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
Hi all.

This fixes image fleecing scheme for 3.0, details are in 04 patch.
Looks like this breaks 'test-replication':

http://patchew.org/QEMU/address@hidden/

test-replication: /stor/work/qemu/block/io.c:725: wait_serialising_requests: 
Assertion `qemu_coroutine_self() != req->co' failed.
GTester: last random seed: R02Se49967625f19c5be9918a2503fb2fff5
test-replication: /stor/work/qemu/block/io.c:725: wait_serialising_requests: 
Assertion `qemu_coroutine_self() != req->co' failed.
   GTESTER tests/test-qht-par
GTester: last random seed: R02S8fad2bb2daddc51eb51623bb7c86cb67
test-replication: /stor/work/qemu/block/io.c:725: wait_serialising_requests: 
Assertion `qemu_coroutine_self() != req->co' failed.
GTester: last random seed: R02S024718e9b1e2b1facafe254c43e1430b

Fam

interesting.

in gdb I see, that both requests are identical (i.e. their BdrvTrackedRequeststructs, except list filed)writes (self and req)...

and it's actually the same request, duplicated in the ist, first it is created in bdrv_co_copy_range_internal,

and than again,
#0  tracked_request_begin (req=0x7fffe8f9e7d0, bs=0x555555a43040, offset=33554432, bytes=33554432, type=
    BDRV_TRACKED_WRITE) at block/io.c:598
#1  0x00005555555f76bc in bdrv_co_copy_range_internal (src=0x55555597ef80, src_offset=33882112,     dst=0x5555559f1d30, dst_offset=33554432, bytes=33554432, read_flags=BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING,
    write_flags=BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING, recurse_src=true) at block/io.c:2949
#2  0x00005555555f78e9 in bdrv_co_copy_range_from (src=0x55555597ef80, src_offset=33882112,     dst=0x5555559f1d30, dst_offset=33554432, bytes=33554432, read_flags=BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING,
    write_flags=BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING) at block/io.c:2995
#3  0x00005555555ae931 in qcow2_co_copy_range_from (bs=0x555555977ff0, src=0x5555559f14d0,     src_offset=33554432, dst=0x5555559f1d30, dst_offset=33554432, bytes=33554432,     read_flags=BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING, write_flags=BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING) at block/qcow2.c:3311 #4  0x00005555555f77cf in bdrv_co_copy_range_internal (src=0x5555559f14d0, src_offset=33554432,     dst=0x5555559f1d30, dst_offset=33554432, bytes=33554432, read_flags=BDRV_REQ_NO_SERIALISING,
    write_flags=BDRV_REQ_SERIALISING, recurse_src=true) at block/io.c:2966


so, it's actually bug in copy_range architecture.

--
Best regards,
Vladimir




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]