Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix xbzrle vs last_sent_block update

[Peter Maydell]

On 10 December 2015 at 16:31, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
<address@hidden> wrote:
> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <address@hidden>
>
> My fix (84e7b80a) replaced the last_sent_block update that I'd
> removed earlier; however it was too aggressive in the xbzrle case.
>
> save_xbzrle_page might return '0' to mean that the page didn't
> need sending since it was the same as the last sent version;
> in this case we can't update 'last_sent_block' since we didn't
> actually send it.
>
> Symptom: 'Illegal RAM offset 1018000' as we try and send a page
>         to the wrong RAMBlock;  potentially that could be a data
>         corruption if you were really unlucky.
>
> Fixes: 84e7b80a05c0c44b90533c6cd2f1db5c932ccf77
>
> Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <address@hidden>
> ---
>  migration/ram.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
> index 1eb155a..0490f00 100644
> --- a/migration/ram.c
> +++ b/migration/ram.c
> @@ -716,6 +716,9 @@ static int save_zero_page(QEMUFile *f, RAMBlock *block, 
> ram_addr_t offset,
>   * ram_save_page: Send the given page to the stream
>   *
>   * Returns: Number of pages written.
> + *          < 0 - error
> + *          >=0 - Number of pages written - this might legally be 0
> + *                if xbzrle noticed the page was the same.
>   *
>   * @f: QEMUFile where to send the data
>   * @block: block that contains the page we want to send
> @@ -1249,7 +1252,13 @@ static int ram_save_target_page(MigrationState *ms, 
> QEMUFile *f,
>          if (unsentmap) {
>              clear_bit(dirty_ram_abs >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS, unsentmap);
>          }
> -        last_sent_block = block;
> +        /* Only update last_sent_block if a block was actually sent; xbzrle
> +         * might have decided the page was identical so didn't bother writing
> +         * to the stream.
> +         */
> +        if (res > 0) {
> +            last_sent_block = block;
> +        }
>      }
>
>      return res;

This sounds like we should probably put this into 2.5; I'm happy
to do so if it gets review by tomorrow afternoon and Juan/Amit
agree.

thanks
-- PMM