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

["Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>]

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.

> 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.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|