Re: [Qemu-block] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] iotests: fix 169

[Max Reitz]

On 2018-04-12 11:09, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 12.04.2018 11:34, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 11.04.2018 19:11, Max Reitz wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-11 15:05, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Hmm, first type? I'm now not sure about, did I really see sha256
>>>> mismatch, or something like this (should be error, but found bitmap):
>>>>
>>>> --- /work/src/qemu/up-169/tests/qemu-iotests/169.out 2018-04-11
>>>> 15:35:10.055027392 +0300
>>>> +++ /work/src/qemu/up-169/tests/qemu-iotests/169.out.bad 2018-04-11
>>>> 15:58:09.300450045 +0300
>>>> @@ -1,5 +1,20 @@
>>>> -........
>>>> +F.......
>>>> +======================================================================
>>>> +FAIL: test__not_persistent__migbitmap__offline
>>>> (__main__.TestDirtyBitmapMigration)
>>>> +methodcaller(name, ...) --> methodcaller object
>>>> +----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> +Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>> +  File "169", line 136, in do_test_migration
>>>> +    self.check_bitmap(self.vm_b, sha256 if persistent else False)
>>>> +  File "169", line 77, in check_bitmap
>>>> +    "Dirty bitmap 'bitmap0' not found");
>>>> +  File "/work/src/qemu/up-169/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py", line
>>>> 389,
>>>> in assert_qmp
>>>> +    result = self.dictpath(d, path)
>>>> +  File "/work/src/qemu/up-169/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py", line
>>>> 348,
>>>> in dictpath
>>>> +    self.fail('failed path traversal for "%s" in "%s"' % (path,
>>>> str(d)))
>>>> +AssertionError: failed path traversal for "error/desc" in "{u'return':
>>>> {u'sha256':
>>>> u'01d2ebedcb8f549a2547dbf8e231c410e3e747a9479e98909fc936e0035cf8b1'}}"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Max, did you really seed sha256 mismatch or only something like this?
>>> I'm pretty sure I did see mismatches.
>>
>> hm, may be it possible too, because of not waiting for RESUME in this
>> case, we can request sha256 in the intermediate state of bitmap loading
> 
> no. if you see mismatch on first check after migration, then it is after
> RESUME event, so it means, migrated broken bitmap, it's a bug..
> 
> if you see mismatch on second check - after vm_b stop/start, this means
> that it is a persistent case, so incoming migration should fail, and
> bitmap is loaded from file, but how it can mismatch? persistance bug?

Well, I'll tell you if I ever see it again.  If not... Then I guess
we're fine.

Max