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

[Max Reitz]

On 01.04.19 09:21, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 29.03.2019 22:32, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>> Am 29.03.2019 um 19:00 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I haven't tried it out, but from looking at the code it seems so. Maybe
>> you can reproduce on master just to be sure?
>>
> 
> I don't have a reproducer :(

I have one, but it only breaks before
2996ffad3acabe890fbb4f84a069cdc325a68108:

First, setup on an NFS mount on /mnt/nfs.  Second:

$ qemu-img create -f qcow2 /mnt/nfs/foo.qcow2 64M
Formatting '/mnt/nfs/foo.qcow2', fmt=qcow2 size=67108864
cluster_size=65536 lazy_refcounts=off refcount_bits=16
$ (sleep 5; echo "{'execute':'qmp_capabilities'}"; \
   echo "{'execute':'blockdev-del','arguments':{'node-name':'fmt'}}";
   echo "{'execute':'quit'}") \
  | x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -qmp stdio \
    -blockdev node-name=proto,driver=file,filename=/mnt/nfs/foo.qcow2 \
    -blockdev node-name=fmt,driver=qcow2,file=proto
{"QMP": {"version": {"qemu": {"micro": 90, "minor": 0, "major": 3},
"package": "v3.1.0-rc0-71-ga883d6a0bc"}, "capabilities": []}}

Before the sleep is done, stop the service on the NFS host:

$ systemctl stop nfs-service

Once the sleep has run out (you get a {"return": {}} over QMP), start
the service again:

$ systemctl start nfs-service

And then this happens:

Unexpected error in raw_apply_lock_bytes() at block/file-posix.c:705:
Failed to lock byte 100
[1]    30486 done                 ( sleep 5; echo
"{'execute':'qmp_capabilities'}"; echo ; echo ; ) |
       30487 abort (core dumped)  x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -qmp
stdio -blockdev  -blockdev

It works fine after 2996ffad3acabe890fbb4f84a069cdc325a68108.

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature