Re: [Qemu-block] [RFC PATCH for-2.9] block: Ignore guest dev permissions during incoming migration

[Max Reitz]

On 04.04.2017 17:35, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Usually guest devices don't like other writers to the same image, so
> they use blk_set_perm() to prevent this from happening. In the migration
> phase before the VM is actually running, though, they don't have a
> problem with writes to the image. On the other hand, storage migration
> needs to be able to write to the image in this phase, so the restrictive
> blk_set_perm() call of qdev devices breaks it.
> 
> This patch flags all BlockBackends with a qdev device as
> blk->disable_perm during incoming migration, which means that the
> requested permissions are stored in the BlockBackend, but not actually
> applied to its root node yet.
> 
> Once migration has finished and the VM should be resumed, the
> permissions are applied. If they cannot be applied (e.g. because the NBD
> server used for block migration hasn't been shut down), resuming the VM
> fails.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
> ---
>  block/block-backend.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  include/block/block.h |  2 ++
>  migration/migration.c |  8 ++++++++
>  qmp.c                 |  6 ++++++
>  4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/block-backend.c b/block/block-backend.c
> index 0b63773..f817040 100644
> --- a/block/block-backend.c
> +++ b/block/block-backend.c

[...]

> @@ -597,15 +598,52 @@ void blk_get_perm(BlockBackend *blk, uint64_t *perm, 
> uint64_t *shared_perm)
>      *shared_perm = blk->shared_perm;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Notifies the user of all BlockBackends that migration has completed. qdev
> + * devices can tighten their permissions in response (specifically revoke
> + * shared write permissions that we needed for storage migration).
> + *
> + * If an error is returned, the VM cannot be allowed to be resumed.
> + */
> +void blk_resume_after_migration(Error **errp)
> +{
> +    BlockBackend *blk;
> +    Error *local_err = NULL;
> +
> +    for (blk = blk_next(NULL); blk; blk = blk_next(blk)) {

Shouldn't we use blk_all_next()?

Trusting you that silently disabling autostart is something the upper
layers can deal with, the rest looks good to me.

(The only other runtime changes of autostart apart from stop/cont appear
to be in blockdev_init() (if (bdrv_key_required()), but I don't think
that can happen anymore) and in migration/colo.c (which enables it and
emits an error message).)

Max

> +        if (!blk->disable_perm) {
> +            continue;
> +        }
> +
> +        blk->disable_perm = false;
> +
> +        blk_set_perm(blk, blk->perm, blk->shared_perm, &local_err);
> +        if (local_err) {
> +            error_propagate(errp, local_err);
> +            blk->disable_perm = true;
> +            return;
> +        }
> +    }
> +}
> +

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature