From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
To: qemu-block@nongnu.org
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com, jsnow@redhat.com,
mreitz@redhat.com, kwolf@redhat.com, vsementsov@virtuozzo.com,
den@openvz.org
Subject: [PATCH 02/21] tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod: add test_parallel_perm_update
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 23:12:14 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201123201233.9534-5-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201123201233.9534-1-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Add test to show that simple DFS recursion order is not correct for
permission update. Correct order is topological-sort order, which will
be introduced later.
Consider the block driver which has two filter children: one active
with exclusive write access and one inactive with no specific
permissions.
And, these two children has a common base child, like this:
┌─────┐ ┌──────┐
│ fl2 │ ◀── │ top │
└─────┘ └──────┘
│ │
│ │ w
│ ▼
│ ┌──────┐
│ │ fl1 │
│ └──────┘
│ │
│ │ w
│ ▼
│ ┌──────┐
└───────▶ │ base │
└──────┘
So, exclusive write is propagated.
Assume, we want to make fl2 active instead of fl1.
So, we set some option for top driver and do permission update.
If permission update (remember, it's DFS) goes first through
top->fl1->base branch it will succeed: it firstly drop exclusive write
permissions and than apply them for another BdrvChildren.
But if permission update goes first through top->fl2->base branch it
will fail, as when we try to update fl2->base child, old not yet
updated fl1->base child will be in conflict.
Now test fails, so it runs only with -d flag. To run do
./test-bdrv-graph-mod -d -p /bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-perm-update
from <build-directory>/tests.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
---
tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c b/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c
index 3b9e6f242f..27e3361a60 100644
--- a/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c
+++ b/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c
@@ -232,6 +232,68 @@ static void test_parallel_exclusive_write(void)
bdrv_unref(top);
}
+static void write_to_file_perms(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c,
+ BdrvChildRole role,
+ BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
+ uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared,
+ uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared)
+{
+ if (bs->file && c == bs->file) {
+ *nperm = BLK_PERM_WRITE;
+ *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_WRITE;
+ } else {
+ *nperm = 0;
+ *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL;
+ }
+}
+
+static BlockDriver bdrv_write_to_file = {
+ .format_name = "tricky-perm",
+ .bdrv_child_perm = write_to_file_perms,
+};
+
+static void test_parallel_perm_update(void)
+{
+ BlockDriverState *top = no_perm_node("top");
+ BlockDriverState *tricky =
+ bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_write_to_file, "tricky", BDRV_O_RDWR,
+ &error_abort);
+ BlockDriverState *base = no_perm_node("base");
+ BlockDriverState *fl1 = pass_through_node("fl1");
+ BlockDriverState *fl2 = pass_through_node("fl2");
+ BdrvChild *c_fl1, *c_fl2;
+
+ bdrv_attach_child(top, tricky, "file", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_DATA,
+ &error_abort);
+ c_fl1 = bdrv_attach_child(tricky, fl1, "first", &child_of_bds,
+ BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, &error_abort);
+ c_fl2 = bdrv_attach_child(tricky, fl2, "second", &child_of_bds,
+ BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, &error_abort);
+ bdrv_attach_child(fl1, base, "backing", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED,
+ &error_abort);
+ bdrv_attach_child(fl2, base, "backing", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED,
+ &error_abort);
+ bdrv_ref(base);
+
+ /* Select fl1 as first child to be active */
+ tricky->file = c_fl1;
+ bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort);
+
+ assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE);
+
+ /* Now, try to switch active child and update permissions */
+ tricky->file = c_fl2;
+ bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort);
+
+ assert(c_fl2->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE);
+
+ /* Switch once more, to not care about real child order in the list */
+ tricky->file = c_fl1;
+ bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort);
+
+ assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE);
+}
+
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i;
@@ -256,6 +318,8 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
if (debug) {
g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-exclusive-write",
test_parallel_exclusive_write);
+ g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-perm-update",
+ test_parallel_perm_update);
}
return g_test_run();
--
2.21.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-23 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-23 20:12 [PATCH RFC 00/21] block: update graph permissions update Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] block: make bdrv_drop_intermediate() less wrong Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-24 9:39 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 01/21] tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod: add test_parallel_exclusive_write Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] block: assert that permission commit sets same permissions Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-24 9:40 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy [this message]
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 03/21] util: add transactions.c Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 04/21] block: bdrv_refresh_perms: check parents compliance Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-24 9:42 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 05/21] block: refactor bdrv_child* permission functions Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 06/21] block: rewrite bdrv_child_try_set_perm() using bdrv_refresh_perms() Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 07/21] block: inline bdrv_child_*() permission functions calls Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 08/21] block: use topological sort for permission update Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 09/21] block: add bdrv_drv_set_perm transaction action Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 10/21] block: add bdrv_list_* permission update functions Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 11/21] block: add bdrv_replace_child_safe() transaction action Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 12/21] block: return value from bdrv_replace_node() Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 13/21] block: fix bdrv_replace_node_common Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 14/21] block: add bdrv_attach_child_noperm() transaction action Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 15/21] block: split out bdrv_replace_node_noperm() Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 16/21] block: bdrv_append(): don't consume reference Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 17/21] block: bdrv_append(): return status Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 18/21] block: adapt bdrv_append() for inserting filters Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 19/21] block: add bdrv_remove_backing transaction action Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 20/21] block: introduce bdrv_drop_filter() Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-11-23 20:12 ` [PATCH 21/21] block/backup-top: drop .active Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
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=20201123201233.9534-5-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com \
--to=vsementsov@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=den@openvz.org \
--cc=jsnow@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=mreitz@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).