Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH v3] block/file-posix: do not fail on unlock bytes

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

29.03.2019 20:58, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 29.03.2019 20:44, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 29.03.19 18:40, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> Am 29.03.2019 um 18:30 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>>>> On 29.03.19 18:24, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>>>> Am 29.03.2019 um 18:15 hat Max Reitz geschrieben:
>>>>>> On 29.03.19 12:04, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>>>>>>> bdrv_replace_child() calls bdrv_check_perm() with error_abort on
>>>>>>> loosening permissions. However file-locking operations may fail even
>>>>>>> in this case, for example on NFS. And this leads to Qemu crash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's avoid such errors. Note, that we ignore such things anyway on
>>>>>>> permission update commit and abort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <address@hidden>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>   block/file-posix.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>>>>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/block/file-posix.c b/block/file-posix.c
>>>>>>> index db4cccbe51..1cf4ee49eb 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/block/file-posix.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/block/file-posix.c
>>>>>>> @@ -815,6 +815,18 @@ static int raw_handle_perm_lock(BlockDriverState 
>>>>>>> *bs,
>>>>>>>       switch (op) {
>>>>>>>       case RAW_PL_PREPARE:
>>>>>>> +        if ((s->perm | new_perm) == s->perm &&
>>>>>>> +            (s->shared_perm & new_shared) == s->shared_perm)
>>>>>>> +        {
>>>>>>> +            /*
>>>>>>> +             * We are going to unlock bytes, it should not fail. If it 
>>>>>>> fail due
>>>>>>> +             * to some fs-dependent permission-unrelated reasons 
>>>>>>> (which occurs
>>>>>>> +             * sometimes on NFS and leads to abort in 
>>>>>>> bdrv_replace_child) we
>>>>>>> +             * can't prevent such errors by any check here. And we 
>>>>>>> ignore them
>>>>>>> +             * anyway in ABORT and COMMIT.
>>>>>>> +             */
>>>>>>> +            return 0;
>>>>>>> +        }
>>>>>>>           ret = raw_apply_lock_bytes(s, s->fd, s->perm | new_perm,
>>>>>>>                                      ~s->shared_perm | ~new_shared,
>>>>>>>                                      false, errp);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Help me understand the exact issue, please.  I understand that there are
>>>>>> operations like bdrv_replace_child() that pass &error_abort to
>>>>>> bdrv_check_perm() because they just loosen the permissions, so it should
>>>>>> not fail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, if the whole effect really would be to loosen permissions,
>>>>>> raw_apply_lock_bytes() wouldn't have failed here in PREPARE anyway:
>>>>>> @unlock is passed as false, so no bytes will be unlocked.  And if
>>>>>> permissions are just loosened (as your condition checks), it should not
>>>>>> lock any bytes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why does it attempt lock any bytes in the first place?  There must be
>>>>>> some discrepancy between s->perm and s->locked_perm, or ~s->shared_perm
>>>>>> and s->locked_shared_perm.  How does that occur?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose raw_check_lock_bytes() is what is failing, not
>>>>> raw_apply_lock_bytes().
>>>>
>>>> Hm, maybe in Vladimir's case, but not in e.g.
>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652572 .
>>>
>>> This is reported against 3.0, which didn't avoid re-locking permissions
>>> that we already hold, so there raw_apply_lock_bytes() can still fail.
>>
>> That makes sense.  Which leaves the question why Vladimir still seems to
>> see the error there...?
>>
> 
> I'm sorry :(. I'm trying to fix bug based on 2.10, and now I see that is 
> already fixed
>   upstream. I don't have a reproducer, only old coredumps.
> 
> So, now it looks like we don't need this patch, as on permission loosening 
> file-posix
> don't call any FS apis, yes?
> 


Ah, you mentioned, that raw_check_lock_bytes is still buggy.


-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir