Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Fix Block Hotplug race with drive_del()

[Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>]

* Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> [2010-11-11 04:48]:
> Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > * Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> [2010-11-10 11:40]:
> >> Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > * Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> [2010-11-10 06:48]:
> >> >> One real question, and a couple of nits.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com> writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Block hot unplug is racy since the guest is required to acknowlege the ACPI
> >> >> > unplug event; this may not happen synchronously with the device removal command
> >> >> 
> >> >> Well, I wouldn't call unplug "racy".  It just takes an unpredictable
> >> >> length of time, possibly forever.  To make a race, you need to throw in
> >> >> a client assuming (incorrectly) that unplug is instantaneous, as
> >> >> described in your next paragraph.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Moreover, all PCI unplug is that way, not just block.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > This series aims to close a gap where by mgmt applications that assume the
> >> >> > block resource has been removed without confirming that the guest has
> >> >> > acknowledged the removal may re-assign the underlying device to a second guest
> >> >> > leading to data leakage.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Yes, the incorrect assumption is a problem.  But with that fixed (in the
> >> >> management application), we run right into the next problem: there is no
> >> >> way for the management application to reliably disconnect the guest from
> >> >> a block device.  And that's the problem you're fixing.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, that's the right way to word it; providing a method to forcibly
> >> > disconnect the guest from the host device.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > This series introduces a new montor command to decouple asynchornous device
> >> >> 
> >> >> Typos "montor" and "asynchornous".  You might want to use a spell
> >> >> checker :)
> >> >> 
> >> >> Lines are a bit long.  Recommend wrap at column 70.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > removal from restricting guest access to a block device.  We do this by creating
> >> >> > a new monitor command drive_del which maps to a bdrv_unplug() command which
> >> >> > does a qemu_aio_flush; bdrv_flush() and bdrv_close().  Once complete, subsequent
> >> >> > IO is rejected from the device and the guest will get IO errors but continue to
> >> >> > function.  In addition to preventing further IO, we clean up state pointers
> >> >> > between host (BlockDriverState) and guest (DeviceInfo).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A subsequent device removal command can be issued to remove the device, to which
> >> >> > the guest may or maynot respond, but as long as the unplugged bit is set, no IO
> >> >> 
> >> >> "maynot" is not a word.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > will be sumbitted.
> >> >> 
> >> >> This suggests to drive_del before device_del, which makes the device
> >> >> goes through a "broken device" state on its way to unplug.  If the guest
> >> >> accesses the device in that state, it gets I/O errors.  Not nice.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Instead, I'd recommend device_del, wait for the device to go away,
> >> >> drive_del on time out.  If the guest reacts to the ACPI unplug promptly,
> >> >> it's never exposed to the "broken device" state.  Note: if the drive_del
> >> >> fails because the device doesn't exist, we lost the race with the
> >> >> automatic destruction, which is harmless.  Ignore that error.
> >> >
> >> > Honestly, other than describing what happens if you sever the connection
> >> > when the guest isn't aware of it; I don't want to try to capture how the
> >> > mgmt layer implements the removal.  
> >> >
> >> > One may want to force the disconnect before attempting to remove the
> >> > device; or the other way around; that's really the mgmt layer's call.
> >> 
> >> Fair enough.
> >> 
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >  block.c         |    7 +++++++
> >> >> >  block.h         |    1 +
> >> >> >  blockdev.c      |   36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> >  blockdev.h      |    1 +
> >> >> >  hmp-commands.hx |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> >  5 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > diff --git a/block.c b/block.c
> >> >> > index 6b505fb..c76a796 100644
> >> >> > --- a/block.c
> >> >> > +++ b/block.c
> >> >> > @@ -1328,6 +1328,13 @@ void bdrv_set_removable(BlockDriverState *bs, int removable)
> >> >> >      }
> >> >> >  }
> >> >> >  
> >> >> > +void bdrv_unplug(BlockDriverState *bs)
> >> >> > +{
> >> >> > +    qemu_aio_flush();
> >> >> > +    bdrv_flush(bs);
> >> >> > +    bdrv_close(bs);
> >> >> > +}
> >> >> > +
> >> >> 
> >> >> Unless we expect more users, I'd inline this into its only caller.
> >> >> Matter of taste.
> >> >
> >> > Works for me.
> >> >
> >> >> 
> >> >> >  int bdrv_is_removable(BlockDriverState *bs)
> >> >> >  {
> >> >> >      return bs->removable;
> >> >> > diff --git a/block.h b/block.h
> >> >> > index 78ecfac..581414c 100644
> >> >> > --- a/block.h
> >> >> > +++ b/block.h
> >> >> > @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ void bdrv_set_on_error(BlockDriverState *bs, BlockErrorAction on_read_error,
> >> >> >                         BlockErrorAction on_write_error);
> >> >> >  BlockErrorAction bdrv_get_on_error(BlockDriverState *bs, int is_read);
> >> >> >  void bdrv_set_removable(BlockDriverState *bs, int removable);
> >> >> > +void bdrv_unplug(BlockDriverState *bs);
> >> >> >  int bdrv_is_removable(BlockDriverState *bs);
> >> >> >  int bdrv_is_read_only(BlockDriverState *bs);
> >> >> >  int bdrv_is_sg(BlockDriverState *bs);
> >> >> > diff --git a/blockdev.c b/blockdev.c
> >> >> > index 6cb179a..ee8c2ec 100644
> >> >> > --- a/blockdev.c
> >> >> > +++ b/blockdev.c
> >> >> > @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
> >> >> >  #include "qemu-option.h"
> >> >> >  #include "qemu-config.h"
> >> >> >  #include "sysemu.h"
> >> >> > +#include "hw/qdev.h"
> >> >> > +#include "block_int.h"
> >> >> >  
> >> >> >  static QTAILQ_HEAD(drivelist, DriveInfo) drives = QTAILQ_HEAD_INITIALIZER(drives);
> >> >> >  
> >> >> > @@ -597,3 +599,37 @@ int do_change_block(Monitor *mon, const char *device,
> >> >> >      }
> >> >> >      return monitor_read_bdrv_key_start(mon, bs, NULL, NULL);
> >> >> >  }
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > +int do_drive_del(Monitor *mon, const QDict *qdict, QObject **ret_data)
> >> >> > +{
> >> >> > +    const char *id = qdict_get_str(qdict, "id");
> >> >> > +    BlockDriverState *bs;
> >> >> > +    Property *prop;
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > +    bs = bdrv_find(id);
> >> >> > +    if (!bs) {
> >> >> > +        qerror_report(QERR_DEVICE_NOT_FOUND, id);
> >> >> > +        return -1;
> >> >> > +    }
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > +    /* quiesce block driver; prevent further io */
> >> >> > +    bdrv_unplug(bs);
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > +    /* clean up guest state from pointing to host resource by
> >> >> > +     * finding and removing DeviceState "drive" property */
> >> >> > +    for (prop = bs->peer->info->props; prop && prop->name; prop++) {
> >> >> > +        if ((prop->info->type == PROP_TYPE_DRIVE) && 
> >> >> > +            (*(BlockDriverState **)qdev_get_prop_ptr(bs->peer, prop) == bs)) {
> >> >> > +            if (prop->info->free) {
> >> >> > +                prop->info->free(bs->peer, prop);
> >> >> > +            }
> >> 
> >> Your use of prop->info->free() in this context is wrong.  More below.
> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Does this null the drive property?  I doubt it.  Quick check in the
> >> >> debugger?
> >> >> 
> >> >> The free callbacks generally don't zap the properties, because they run
> >> >> from qdev_free().
> >> >
> >> > To be honest; I didn't see anything that looked like "remove this
> >> > property" in the qdev api.  Any pointers?
> >> 
> >> The closest we have is indeed the Property method free(), but that's not
> >> quite right.  It's really only for use by qdev_free().
> >> 
> >> > should I be calling qdev_free() on the dev?
> >> 
> >> No, because then the whole device is gone, not just the property :)
> >> 
> >> >                                              I don't quite understand
> >> > the distinction between the info list of properties and the device
> >> > itself, nor specifically what we need to remove in the drive_del()
> >> > operation versus the device_del() portion.
> >> 
> >> device_del / qdev_free() destroy a qdev, such as a "virtio-blk-pci"
> >> device (C type VirtIOPCIProxy).
> >> 
> >> drive_del destroys something else, namely the block device host part
> >> (BlockDriverState + DeviceInfo).  Obviously, it needs to zap all
> >> pointers to the host part along with it.  Specifically, it needs to zap
> >> the device's pointer to it.
> >> 
> >> Example: if a "virtio-blk-pci" device is using drive "foo", then
> >> "drive_del foo" needs to zap its member block.bs.
> >> 
> >> Complication: we don't (want to) know what kind of device exactly is
> >> using the drive.  But we do know that a drive property must be
> >> describing it.
> >> 
> >> So we search the properties (for (prop...)) for a drive property
> >> (prop->info->type == PROP_TYPE_DRIVE) that points to this drive (... ==
> >> bs).
> >> 
> >> Result:
> >> 
> >>     BlockDriverState *bs;
> >>     Property *prop;
> >>     BlockDriverState **ptr;
> >> [...]
> >>     for (prop = bs->peer->info->props; prop && prop->name; prop++) {
> >>         if ((prop->info->type == PROP_TYPE_DRIVE)) {
> >>             ptr = qdev_get_prop_ptr(dev, prop);
> >>             if (*ptr == bs) {
> >>                 bdrv_detach(bs, bs->peer);
> >
> > Invoking the free method on the drive property does do detach:
> >
> > free_drive
> > {
> >     BlockDriverState **ptr = qdev_get_prop_ptr(dev, prop);
> >
> >     if (*ptr) {
> >         bdrv_detach(*ptr, dev);
> >         blockdev_auto_del(*ptr);
> >     }
> > }
> >
> > and the bdrv_delete()
> >
> > takes out the bs pointer.
> 
> Which pointer?  Which bdrv_delete()?

I suppose it's the BlockDriverState returned from bdrv_find() since I'm
invoking bdrv_delete(bs);  

And I suppose qdev_get_prop_ptr() is returning a different ptr to the
same bs; in which case we'll still need the null you had suggested?

> 
> >> Only then are we ready to destroy the host part:
> >> 
> >>     drive_uninit(drive_get_by_blockdev(bs));
> >
> > And if auto-deletion it set, then it handles the drive_uninit().  Do you think
> > we should explicitly invoke drive_uninit() ?
> 
> Actually, blockdev_auto_del() deletes the block device only if DriveInfo
> has auto_del set.  Why is that?  Quote blockdev.c:
> 
> /*
>  * We automatically delete the drive when a device using it gets
>  * unplugged.  Questionable feature, but we can't just drop it.
>  * Device models call blockdev_mark_auto_del() to schedule the
>  * automatic deletion, and generic qdev code calls blockdev_auto_del()
>  * when deletion is actually safe.
>  */
> 
> Thus, you need to blockdev_mark_auto_del() before blockdev_auto_del().
> 
> However, my blockdev_add work-in-progress changes these two functions to
> *only* delete block devices created the old way (-drive, drive_add).
> You want them deleted regardless of how they were created.  That's why I
> asked you to use drive_uninit() directly.

Gotcha.

> 
> You could argue that Property method free() *should* work here.  Fair
> point.  If you want to clean that up, you're quite welcome.  But I don't
> want to burden your fix with that, so feel free to add a suitable
> comment instead.

-- 
Ryan Harper
Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
IBM Corp., Austin, Tx
ryanh@us.ibm.com