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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_HK_NAME_DR,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC344C04AB5 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 08:53:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57AF82070B for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 08:53:46 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 57AF82070B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56720 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hYo9Z-00041j-IK for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 04:53:45 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55937) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hYnyu-00047y-PJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 04:42:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hYnyt-0003pq-Le for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 04:42:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57458) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hYnyt-0003Q9-Du for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 04:42:43 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FA1E811DC; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 08:42:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from work-vm (ovpn-116-119.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.119]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B1ED18640; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 08:42:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 09:42:22 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" To: Liran Alon Message-ID: <20190606084222.GA2788@work-vm> References: <38B8F53B-F993-45C3-9A82-796A0D4A55EC@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <38B8F53B-F993-45C3-9A82-796A0D4A55EC@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Thu, 06 Jun 2019 08:42:26 +0000 (UTC) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU/KVM migration backwards compatibility broken? X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm list Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" * Liran Alon (liran.alon@oracle.com) wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Looking at QEMU source code, I am puzzled regarding how migration backw= ards compatibility is preserved regarding X86CPU. >=20 > As I understand it, fields that are based on KVM capabilities and guest= runtime usage are defined in VMState subsections in order to not send th= em if not necessary. > This is done such that in case they are not needed and we migrate to an= old QEMU which don=E2=80=99t support loading this state, migration will = still succeed > (As .needed() method will return false and therefore this state won=E2=80= =99t be sent as part of migration stream). > Furthermore, in case .needed() returns true and old QEMU don=E2=80=99t = support loading this state, migration fails. As it should because we are = aware that guest state > is not going to be restored properly on destination. >=20 > I=E2=80=99m puzzled about what will happen in the following scenario: > 1) Source is running new QEMU with new KVM that supports save of some V= MState subsection. > 2) Destination is running new QEMU that supports load this state but wi= th old kernel that doesn=E2=80=99t know how to load this state. >=20 > I would have expected in this case that if source .needed() returns tru= e, then migration will fail because of lack of support in destination ker= nel. > However, it seems from current QEMU code that this will actually succee= d in many cases. >=20 > For example, if msr_smi_count is sent as part of migration stream (See = vmstate_msr_smi_count) and destination have has_msr_smi_count=3D=3Dfalse, > then destination will succeed loading migration stream but kvm_put_msrs= () will actually ignore env->msr_smi_count and will successfully load gue= st state. > Therefore, migration will succeed even though it should have failed=E2=80= =A6 >=20 > It seems to me that QEMU should have for every such VMState subsection,= a .post_load() method that verifies that relevant capability is supporte= d by kernel > and otherwise fail migration. >=20 > What do you think? Should I really create a patch to modify all these C= PUX86 VMState subsections to behave like this? I don't know the x86 specific side that much; but from my migration side the answer should mostly be through machine types - indeed for smi-count there's a property 'x-migrate-smi-count' which is off for machine types pre 2.11 (see hw/i386/pc.c pc_compat_2_11) - so if you've got an old kernel you should stick to the old machine types. There's nothing guarding running the new machine type on old-kernels; and arguably we should have a check at startup that complains if your kernel is missing something the machine type uses. However, that would mean that people running with -M pc would fail on old kernels. A post-load is also a valid check; but one question is whether, for a particular register, the pain is worth it - it depends on the symptom that the missing state causes. If it's minor then you might conclude it's not worth a failed migration; if it's a hung or corrupt guest then yes it is. Certainly a warning printed is worth it. Dave > Thanks, > -Liran -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK