From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F14DC4345F for ; Fri, 3 May 2024 22:18:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s31DF-0000Ii-DK; Fri, 03 May 2024 18:17:05 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s31DC-0000I8-Uk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2024 18:17:03 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s31DA-0007TY-W9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2024 18:17:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1714774619; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=di9VvHdEplo4sNxBWVyhq/7CPmtSjfq3bdcNcj0/xZE=; b=NVCUeOQm2+RBfFK0neFfLxQSbd4z70R3sxXXRuBJZ41jcZ5OunL+DQEcUpCpvxr+gfog4H 6Zuwm7dCG3k0caXABZFBYNKuxpLcloGvP+k18EVWS+fuxUkTvj0OTAajxVE3NmQ23nE7mH v9vNncKVmcWM7ozgbVl/nO1swehmQ6Y= Received: from mail-pj1-f71.google.com (mail-pj1-f71.google.com [209.85.216.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-626-BQV4pTTdPGKD6eDEP8gBWw-1; Fri, 03 May 2024 18:16:56 -0400 X-MC-Unique: BQV4pTTdPGKD6eDEP8gBWw-1 Received: by mail-pj1-f71.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2b2c8a007f2so37913a91.0 for ; Fri, 03 May 2024 15:16:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1714774615; x=1715379415; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=di9VvHdEplo4sNxBWVyhq/7CPmtSjfq3bdcNcj0/xZE=; b=lYH6+9ZYzlSrizkOCruevoIVSpBm1G3yO5PPARMluriiJXJaFYAnjNQf8OWNVhertq prG2kr3ROKrQiuXJ0X51SxE65vbs1vG0RIBwO6EMkEi+FcBuws/DuWn02AayT8dvSL1T 1OGi/EzwGw5Qv53fZac2wI6w+DXWfEf/Dpjnh5yu6bZ+rURQLx3bRteU3BFwXBTP97Cd FhOaiuQN6vz3q7bnNeCiK8XNi3nkYv45K5RXu/PgYTVW1hWPUXrfC8kGSm18Wq/pVtsz geMqDteEsxOU+FtnrxotU1nyBNh0xg2fGnNwSYYbEhW0n7zGL47ahCHdLWrUobN21X1Z FQ1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz2P8mGxT6u4P50c9YJg+WvIWYKRlT9rcf2xH+pK0zr6Bh5fFj+ mfcF0PAOWiODixpdDHE5onvDLZUpY30QqOAotw0V5MEhN8Tn4IT4msamf9R56cbL9k7ieFXWIbU yoHjbzVNKsv4f3IwtSuObjygxejv21C7hf+ARQRVCxQhuKFPKjlEm X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:5654:b0:1ae:3504:c5e with SMTP id is20-20020a056a20565400b001ae35040c5emr3615486pzc.4.1714774614703; Fri, 03 May 2024 15:16:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHAsUv5nC96DpliB1Q++1T8hnOp5fPeHTsq4tWxlwrRT15qCd381fTrnC/at9TL42sHJ/5lUg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:5654:b0:1ae:3504:c5e with SMTP id is20-20020a056a20565400b001ae35040c5emr3615443pzc.4.1714774613876; Fri, 03 May 2024 15:16:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x1n (pool-99-254-121-117.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.254.121.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w11-20020aa7858b000000b006efd89cea71sm3554423pfn.84.2024.05.03.15.16.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 03 May 2024 15:16:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 18:16:50 -0400 From: Peter Xu To: Fabiano Rosas Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, berrange@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, Claudio Fontana , Jim Fehlig Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] monitor: fdset: Match against O_DIRECT Message-ID: References: <20240426142042.14573-1-farosas@suse.de> <20240426142042.14573-8-farosas@suse.de> <87seyymw4d.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87seyymw4d.fsf@suse.de> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=peterx@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -35 X-Spam_score: -3.6 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.483, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 06:19:30PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > Peter Xu writes: > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:20:40AM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: > >> We're about to enable the use of O_DIRECT in the migration code and > >> due to the alignment restrictions imposed by filesystems we need to > >> make sure the flag is only used when doing aligned IO. > >> > >> The migration will do parallel IO to different regions of a file, so > >> we need to use more than one file descriptor. Those cannot be obtained > >> by duplicating (dup()) since duplicated file descriptors share the > >> file status flags, including O_DIRECT. If one migration channel does > >> unaligned IO while another sets O_DIRECT to do aligned IO, the > >> filesystem would fail the unaligned operation. > >> > >> The add-fd QMP command along with the fdset code are specifically > >> designed to allow the user to pass a set of file descriptors with > >> different access flags into QEMU to be later fetched by code that > >> needs to alternate between those flags when doing IO. > >> > >> Extend the fdset matching to behave the same with the O_DIRECT flag. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Rosas > >> --- > >> monitor/fds.c | 7 ++++++- > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/monitor/fds.c b/monitor/fds.c > >> index 4ec3b7eea9..62e324fcec 100644 > >> --- a/monitor/fds.c > >> +++ b/monitor/fds.c > >> @@ -420,6 +420,11 @@ int monitor_fdset_dup_fd_add(int64_t fdset_id, int flags) > >> int fd = -1; > >> int dup_fd; > >> int mon_fd_flags; > >> + int mask = O_ACCMODE; > >> + > >> +#ifdef O_DIRECT > >> + mask |= O_DIRECT; > >> +#endif > >> > >> if (mon_fdset->id != fdset_id) { > >> continue; > >> @@ -431,7 +436,7 @@ int monitor_fdset_dup_fd_add(int64_t fdset_id, int flags) > >> return -1; > >> } > >> > >> - if ((flags & O_ACCMODE) == (mon_fd_flags & O_ACCMODE)) { > >> + if ((flags & mask) == (mon_fd_flags & mask)) { > >> fd = mon_fdset_fd->fd; > >> break; > >> } > > > > I think I see what you wanted to do, picking out the right fd out of two > > when qemu_open_old(), which makes sense. > > > > However what happens if the mgmt app only passes in 1 fd to the fdset? The > > issue is we have a "fallback dup()" plan right after this chunk of code: > > > > I'm validating the fdset at file_parse_fdset() beforehand. If there's > anything else than 2 fds then we'll error out: > > if (nfds != 2) { > error_setg(errp, "Outgoing migration needs two fds in the fdset, " > "got %d", nfds); > qmp_remove_fd(*id, false, -1, NULL); > *id = -1; > return false; > } > > > dup_fd = qemu_dup_flags(fd, flags); > > if (dup_fd == -1) { > > return -1; > > } > > > > mon_fdset_fd_dup = g_malloc0(sizeof(*mon_fdset_fd_dup)); > > mon_fdset_fd_dup->fd = dup_fd; > > QLIST_INSERT_HEAD(&mon_fdset->dup_fds, mon_fdset_fd_dup, next); > > > > I think it means even if the mgmt app only passes in 1 fd (rather than 2, > > one with O_DIRECT, one without), QEMU can always successfully call > > qemu_open_old() twice for each case, even though silently the two FDs will > > actually impact on each other. This doesn't look ideal if it's true. > > > > But I also must confess I don't really understand this code at all: we > > dup(), then we try F_SETFL on all the possible flags got passed in. > > However AFAICT due to the fact that dup()ed FDs will share "struct file" it > > means mostly all flags will be shared, except close-on-exec. I don't ever > > see anything protecting that F_SETFL to only touch close-on-exec, I think > > it means it'll silently change file status flags for the other fd which we > > dup()ed from. Does it mean that we have issue already with such dup() usage? > > I think you're right, but I also think there's a requirement even from > this code that the fds in the fdset cannot be dup()ed. I don't see it > enforced anywhere, but maybe that's a consequence of the larger use-case > for which this feature was introduced. I think that's the thing we need to figure out for add-fd usages. The bad thing is there're too many qemu_open_internal() users... so we can't easily tell what we're looking for. May need some time reading the code or the history.. pretty sad. I hope someone can chim in. > > For our scenario, the open() man page says one can use kcmp() to compare > the fds and determine if they are a result of dup(). Maybe we should do > that extra check? We're defining a pretty rigid interface between QEMU > and the management layer, so not likely to break once it's written. I'm > also not sure how bad would it be to call syscall() directly from QEMU > (kcmp has no libc wrapper). That should be all fine, see: $ git grep " syscall(" | wc -l 28 And if we want we can also do fcntl(F_GETFL) on both fds later, making sure they have proper flags (one must have O_DIRECT, one must not). -- Peter Xu