From: Hanna Reitz <hreitz@redhat.com>
To: "Jose R. Ziviani" <jziviani@suse.de>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qemu-img: Allow target be aligned to sector size
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 17:14:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <15930d90-ef66-103a-5ed5-549a08d7a559@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YR5rWv4h+8QuyQGI@pizza>
On 19.08.21 16:31, Jose R. Ziviani wrote:
> Hello Hanna,
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:12:00PM +0200, Hanna Reitz wrote:
>> We cannot write to images opened with O_DIRECT unless we allow them to
>> be resized so they are aligned to the sector size: Since 9c60a5d1978,
>> bdrv_node_refresh_perm() ensures that for nodes whose length is not
>> aligned to the request alignment and where someone has taken a WRITE
>> permission, the RESIZE permission is taken, too).
>>
>> Let qemu-img convert pass the BDRV_O_RESIZE flag (which causes
>> blk_new_open() to take the RESIZE permission) when using cache=none for
>> the target, so that when writing to it, it can be aligned to the target
>> sector size.
>>
>> Without this patch, an error is returned:
>>
>> $ qemu-img convert -f raw -O raw -t none foo.img /mnt/tmp/foo.img
>> qemu-img: Could not open '/mnt/tmp/foo.img': Cannot get 'write'
>> permission without 'resize': Image size is not a multiple of request
>> alignment
>>
>> Buglink: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994266
>> Signed-off-by: Hanna Reitz <hreitz@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> As I have written in the BZ linked above, I am not sure what behavior we
>> want. It can be argued that the current behavior is perfectly OK
>> because we want the target to have the same size as the source, so if
>> this cannot be done, we should just print the above error (which I think
>> explains the problem well enough that users can figure out they need to
>> resize the source image).
>>
>> OTOH, it is difficult for me to imagine a case where the user would
>> prefer the above error to just having qemu-img align the target image's
>> length.
> This is timely convenient because I'm currently investigating an issue detected
> by a libvirt-tck test:
>
> https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt-tck/-/blob/master/scripts/qemu/200-qcow2-single-backing-file.t
>
> It fails with the same message:
> qemu-system-x86_64: -device virtio-blk-pci,bus=pci.0,addr=0x3,drive=libvirt-1-format,id=virtio-disk1,write-cache=on: Cannot get 'write' permission without 'resize': Image size is not a multiple of request alignment
>
> Libvirt-tck basically wants to make sure that libvirt won't pass a 'backing'
> argument if we force a QCOW2 image to be interpreted as a RAW image. But, the
> actual size of a (not preallocated) QCOW2 is usually unaligned so we ended up
> failing at that requirement.
>
> I crafted a reproducer (tck-main is a QCOW2 image):
> $ ./qemu-system-x86_64 \
> -machine pc-i440fx-6.0,accel=kvm -m 1024 -display none -no-user-config -nodefaults \
> -kernel vmlinuz -initrd initrd \
> -blockdev driver=file,filename=/var/cache/libvirt-tck/storage-fs/tck/tck-main,node-name=a,cache.direct=on \
> -blockdev node-name=name,driver=raw,file=a \
> -device virtio-blk-pci,drive=name
>
> And if I remove 'cache.direct=on' OR if I remove the device virtio-blk-pci I
> don't hit the failure.
>
> In order to fix the libvirt-tck test case, I think that creating a preallocated
> QCOW2 image is the best approach, considering their test case goal. But, if you
> don't mind, could you explain why cache.direct=on doesn't set resize permission
> with virtio-blk-pci?
Well, users only take the permissions they need. Because the device
doesn’t actively want to resize the disk, it doesn’t take the permission
(because other simultaneous users might not share that permission, and
so taking more permissions than you need may cause problems).
So the decision whether to take the permission or not is a tradeoff. I
mean, there’s always a work-around: The error message tells you that the
image is not aligned to the request alignment, so you can align the
image size manually. The question is whether taking the permissions may
be problematic, and whether the user can be expected to align the image
size.
(And we also need to keep in mind that this case is extremely rare. I
don’t think that users in practice will ever have images that are not
4k-aligned. What the test is doing is of course something that would
never happen in a practical set-up, in fact, I believe attaching a qcow2
image as a raw image to a VM is something that would usually be
considered dangerous from a security perspective.[1])
For qemu-img convert (i.e. for this patch), I decided that it is
extremely unlikely there are concurrent users for the target, so I can’t
imagine taking more permissions would cause problems. The only downside
I could see is that the target image would be larger than the source
image, but I think that is still the outcome that users want.
On the other side, applying the work-around may be problematic for
users: The source image of qemu-img convert shouldn’t have to be
writable. So resizing it (just so it can be converted to be stored on a
medium with 4k sector size) may actually be impossible for the user.
Now, for the virtio-blk case, that is different. If you’re willing to
apply the work-around, then you don’t have to do so on an “innocent
bystander” image. You have to resize the very image you want to use,
i.e. one that must be writable anyway. So resizing the image outside of
qemu to match the alignment is feasible.
OTOH, because this is a live and complete image, it’s entirely possible
that there are concurrent users that would block virtio-blk from taking
the RESIZE permission, so I don’t think we should take it lightly.
So I think for the virtio-blk case the weight of pro and contra is very
different than for qemu-img. I’m not sure we should take the RESIZE
permission in that case, especially considering that the example is not
a real-world one.
I think if we really want to improve something for the virtio-blk case,
it would be to have the error message tell what the request alignment
is, and to add an error hint like
“Try resizing the image using `qemu-img resize -f {bs->drv->format_name}
+{ROUND_UP(length, aligment) - length}`.”
Hanna
[1] Just to have it mentioned: Attaching a qcow2 image as a qcow2 image
should work perfectly fine, because the qcow2 driver takes the RESIZE
permission.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-19 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-19 10:12 [PATCH] qemu-img: Allow target be aligned to sector size Hanna Reitz
2021-08-19 14:31 ` Jose R. Ziviani
2021-08-19 15:14 ` Hanna Reitz [this message]
2021-08-19 18:58 ` Jose R. Ziviani
2021-09-07 9:58 ` Hanna Reitz
2021-09-07 11:29 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2021-09-07 12:48 ` Hanna Reitz
2021-09-07 13:44 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2021-09-07 14:00 ` Hanna Reitz
2021-09-07 14:18 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2021-09-14 9:24 ` Hanna Reitz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=15930d90-ef66-103a-5ed5-549a08d7a559@redhat.com \
--to=hreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=jziviani@suse.de \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).