qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 00/27] block: Lock images when o


From: Kevin Wolf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 00/27] block: Lock images when opening
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 12:07:06 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Am 10.05.2016 um 11:43 hat Daniel P. Berrange geschrieben:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:35:14AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 10.05.2016 um 11:23 hat Daniel P. Berrange geschrieben:
> > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:14:22AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > > Am 10.05.2016 um 10:50 hat Daniel P. Berrange geschrieben:
> > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 09:43:04AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 09:14:26AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > However I didn't test the write-shareable case (the libvirt
> > > > > > > <shareable/> flag which should map to a shared lock -- is that 
> > > > > > > right Dan?).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To Dan (mainly): I think setting the <shareable/> flag in libvirt 
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > sets cache=unsafe on the qemu drive (it may have other effects for
> > > > > > virtlockd).  Should there be an extra qemu drive flag to communicate
> > > > > > that the drive is write-shareable?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sure, if QEMU had a way to indicate that the disk was used in a
> > > > > write-sharable mode, libvirt would use it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I agree with your general point that we should do no locking for
> > > > > read-only access, F_RDLCK for shared-write and F_WRLCK for
> > > > > exclusive-write access. I think I made that point similarly against
> > > > > an earlier version of this patchset
> > > > 
> > > > Why should we do no locking for read-only access by default? If an image
> > > > is written to, read-only accesses are potentially inconsistent and we
> > > > should protect users against it.
> > > > 
> > > > The only argument I can see in the old versions of this series is
> > > > "libguestfs does it and usually it gets away with it". For me, that's
> > > > not an argument for generally allowing this, but at most for providing a
> > > > switch to bypass the locking.
> > > > 
> > > > Because let's be clear about this: If someone lost data because they
> > > > took an inconsistent backup this way and comes to us qemu developers,
> > > > all we can tell them is "sorry, what you did is not supported". And
> > > > that's a pretty strong sign that locking should prevent it by default.
> > > 
> > > We have 3 usage scenarios - readonly-share, writable-shared and
> > > writable-exclusive, and only 2 lock types to play with. This series
> > > does no locking at all in the writable-shared case, so we still have
> > > the problem you describe in that someone opening the image for readonly
> > > access will succeeed even when it is used writable-shared by another
> > > process.
> > > 
> > > So we have to pick a trade-off here. IMHO it is more important to
> > > ensure we have locks in both the write-shared & write-exclusive case,
> > > as both of those can definitely result in corrupted images if not
> > > careful, where as read-only access merely results in your reading
> > > bad data, no risk of corrupting the original image.
> > 
> > I agree that we want locking for the writable-shared case. That doesn't
> > mean no locking for read-only, though. I think read-only and writeable-
> > shared are the same thing as far as locking is concerned.
> 
> It doesn't make much sense to say that it is unsafe to use read-only
> in combination with write-exclusive, but then allow read-only with
> write-shared. In both cases you have the same scenario that the
> read-only app may get inconsistent data when reading.

Doesn't write-shared usually indicate that the contents can actually be
consistently read/written to, for example because a cluster filesystem
is used? If you couldn't, you would use write-exclusive instead.

In contrast, write-exclusive indicates that correct concurrent access
isn't possible, for example because you're using a "normal" filesystem
that might additionally keep things in a writeback cache in the guest.
You wouldn't use write-shared there.

> > This is the matrix of the allowed combinations (without a manual lock
> > override that enables libguestfs to use unsupported cases), as I see it:
> > 
> >                     wr-excl     wr-shared   read-only
> > write-exclusive     no          no          no
> > write-shared        no          yes         yes
> > read-only           no          yes         yes
> > 
> > Do you disagree with any of the entries?
> 
> I would have 'yes' in all the read-only cells.

I'm surprised how low the standards seem to be when we're talking about
data integrity. If occasionally losing data is okay, the qemu block
layer could be quite a bit simpler.

Kevin



reply via email to

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