Re: [Qemu-stable] [PATCH v3] block: fix QEMU crash with scsi-hd and drive_del

[Greg Kurz]

On Fri, 25 May 2018 10:37:15 +0200
Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:

> Am 25.05.2018 um 00:53 hat Greg Kurz geschrieben:
> > Removing a drive with drive_del while it is being used to run an I/O
> > intensive workload can cause QEMU to crash.
> > 
> > An AIO flush can yield at some point:
> > 
> > blk_aio_flush_entry()
> >  blk_co_flush(blk)
> >   bdrv_co_flush(blk->root->bs)
> >    ...
> >     qemu_coroutine_yield()
> > 
> > and let the HMP command to run, free blk->root and give control
> > back to the AIO flush:
> > 
> >     hmp_drive_del()
> >      blk_remove_bs()
> >       bdrv_root_unref_child(blk->root)
> >        child_bs = blk->root->bs
> >        bdrv_detach_child(blk->root)
> >         bdrv_replace_child(blk->root, NULL)
> >          blk->root->bs = NULL
> >         g_free(blk->root) <============== blk->root becomes stale
> >        bdrv_unref(child_bs)
> >         bdrv_delete(child_bs)
> >          bdrv_close()
> >           bdrv_drained_begin()
> >            bdrv_do_drained_begin()
> >             bdrv_drain_recurse()
> >              aio_poll()
> >               ...
> >               qemu_coroutine_switch()
> > 
> > and the AIO flush completion ends up dereferencing blk->root:
> > 
> >   blk_aio_complete()
> >    scsi_aio_complete()
> >     blk_get_aio_context(blk)
> >      bs = blk_bs(blk)
> >  ie, bs = blk->root ? blk->root->bs : NULL
> >             ^^^^^
> >             stale
> > 
> > The problem is that we should avoid making block driver graph
> > changes while we have in-flight requests. This patch hence adds
> > a drained section to bdrv_detach_child(), so that we're sure
> > all requests have been drained before blk->root becomes stale.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <address@hidden>
> > ---
> > v3: - start drained section before modifying the graph (Stefan)
> > 
> > v2: - drain I/O requests when detaching the BDS (Stefan, Paolo)
> > ---
> >  block.c |    4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
> > index 501b64c8193f..715c1b56c1e2 100644
> > --- a/block.c
> > +++ b/block.c
> > @@ -2127,12 +2127,16 @@ BdrvChild *bdrv_attach_child(BlockDriverState 
> > *parent_bs,
> >  
> >  static void bdrv_detach_child(BdrvChild *child)
> >  {
> > +    BlockDriverState *child_bs = child->bs;
> > +
> > +    bdrv_drained_begin(child_bs);
> >      if (child->next.le_prev) {
> >          QLIST_REMOVE(child, next);
> >          child->next.le_prev = NULL;
> >      }
> >  
> >      bdrv_replace_child(child, NULL);
> > +    bdrv_drained_end(child_bs);
> >  
> >      g_free(child->name);
> >      g_free(child);  
> 
> I wonder if the better fix would be calling blk_drain() in
> blk_remove_bs() (which would also better be blk_drained_begin/end...).
> 

Hmm... would blk_drain() in blk_remove_bs() ensure we don't have
any new activity until the BDS and BB are actually dissociated ?

ie, something like the following ?

+    blk_drain(blk);
     bdrv_root_unref_child(blk->root);
     blk->root = NULL;

because we can't do anything like:

+    bdrv_drained_begin(blk_bs(blk));
     bdrv_root_unref_child(blk->root);
+    bdrv_drained_begin(blk_bs(blk));
     blk->root = NULL;

since g_free(blk->root) gets called from under bdrv_root_unref_child()
at some point.

> Doing the proposed change in bdrv_detach_child() should fix the problem
> that you're seeing, but at first sight it promises that callers don't
> have to care about shutting down their activity on the child node first.
> This isn't necessarily correct if the parent may still issue a new
> request (e.g. in response to the completion of an old one). What really
> needs to be drained is the parent's use of the child, not the activity
> of the child.
> 

I was thinking of:

 void bdrv_root_unref_child(BdrvChild *child)
 {
     BlockDriverState *child_bs;
 
     child_bs = child->bs;
+    bdrv_drained_begin(child_bs);
     bdrv_detach_child(child);
+    bdrv_drained_end(child_bs);
     bdrv_unref(child_bs);
 }

but both Paolo and Stefan suggested to move it to bdrv_detach_child().

Is this what you're suggesting ?

> Another minor problem with your approach: If a child node is used by
> more than one parent, this patch would unnecessarily quiesce those other
> parents and wait for the completion of their requests.
> 

Oh... I hadn't realized. Blame my limited knowledge of the block layer :)

> Kevin

Cheers,

--
Greg