[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix xbzrle vs last_sent_block update

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix xbzrle vs last_sent_block update

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)]

From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>

My fix (84e7b80a) replaced the last_sent_block update that I'd
removed earlier; however it was too aggressive in the xbzrle case.

save_xbzrle_page might return '0' to mean that the page didn't
need sending since it was the same as the last sent version;
in this case we can't update 'last_sent_block' since we didn't
actually send it.

Symptom: 'Illegal RAM offset 1018000' as we try and send a page
        to the wrong RAMBlock;  potentially that could be a data
        corruption if you were really unlucky.

Fixes: 84e7b80a05c0c44b90533c6cd2f1db5c932ccf77

Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
---
 migration/ram.c | 11 ++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
index 1eb155a..0490f00 100644
--- a/migration/ram.c
+++ b/migration/ram.c
@@ -716,6 +716,9 @@ static int save_zero_page(QEMUFile *f, RAMBlock *block, ram_addr_t offset,
  * ram_save_page: Send the given page to the stream
  *
  * Returns: Number of pages written.
+ *          < 0 - error
+ *          >=0 - Number of pages written - this might legally be 0
+ *                if xbzrle noticed the page was the same.
  *
  * @f: QEMUFile where to send the data
  * @block: block that contains the page we want to send
@@ -1249,7 +1252,13 @@ static int ram_save_target_page(MigrationState *ms, QEMUFile *f,
         if (unsentmap) {
             clear_bit(dirty_ram_abs >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS, unsentmap);
         }
-        last_sent_block = block;
+        /* Only update last_sent_block if a block was actually sent; xbzrle
+         * might have decided the page was identical so didn't bother writing
+         * to the stream.
+         */
+        if (res > 0) {
+            last_sent_block = block;
+        }
     }
 
     return res;
-- 
2.5.0

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix xbzrle vs last_sent_block update

[Peter Maydell]

On 10 December 2015 at 16:31, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
<dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:
> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
>
> My fix (84e7b80a) replaced the last_sent_block update that I'd
> removed earlier; however it was too aggressive in the xbzrle case.
>
> save_xbzrle_page might return '0' to mean that the page didn't
> need sending since it was the same as the last sent version;
> in this case we can't update 'last_sent_block' since we didn't
> actually send it.
>
> Symptom: 'Illegal RAM offset 1018000' as we try and send a page
>         to the wrong RAMBlock;  potentially that could be a data
>         corruption if you were really unlucky.
>
> Fixes: 84e7b80a05c0c44b90533c6cd2f1db5c932ccf77
>
> Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> ---
>  migration/ram.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
> index 1eb155a..0490f00 100644
> --- a/migration/ram.c
> +++ b/migration/ram.c
> @@ -716,6 +716,9 @@ static int save_zero_page(QEMUFile *f, RAMBlock *block, ram_addr_t offset,
>   * ram_save_page: Send the given page to the stream
>   *
>   * Returns: Number of pages written.
> + *          < 0 - error
> + *          >=0 - Number of pages written - this might legally be 0
> + *                if xbzrle noticed the page was the same.
>   *
>   * @f: QEMUFile where to send the data
>   * @block: block that contains the page we want to send
> @@ -1249,7 +1252,13 @@ static int ram_save_target_page(MigrationState *ms, QEMUFile *f,
>          if (unsentmap) {
>              clear_bit(dirty_ram_abs >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS, unsentmap);
>          }
> -        last_sent_block = block;
> +        /* Only update last_sent_block if a block was actually sent; xbzrle
> +         * might have decided the page was identical so didn't bother writing
> +         * to the stream.
> +         */
> +        if (res > 0) {
> +            last_sent_block = block;
> +        }
>      }
>
>      return res;

This sounds like we should probably put this into 2.5; I'm happy
to do so if it gets review by tomorrow afternoon and Juan/Amit
agree.

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix xbzrle vs last_sent_block update

[Juan Quintela]

"Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)" <dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:
> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
>
> My fix (84e7b80a) replaced the last_sent_block update that I'd
> removed earlier; however it was too aggressive in the xbzrle case.
>
> save_xbzrle_page might return '0' to mean that the page didn't
> need sending since it was the same as the last sent version;
> in this case we can't update 'last_sent_block' since we didn't
> actually send it.
>
> Symptom: 'Illegal RAM offset 1018000' as we try and send a page
>         to the wrong RAMBlock;  potentially that could be a data
>         corruption if you were really unlucky.
>
> Fixes: 84e7b80a05c0c44b90533c6cd2f1db5c932ccf77
>
> Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix xbzrle vs last_sent_block update

[Juan Quintela]

Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
D> On 10 December 2015 at 16:31, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git)
> <dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:
>> From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
>>
>> My fix (84e7b80a) replaced the last_sent_block update that I'd
>> removed earlier; however it was too aggressive in the xbzrle case.
>>
>> save_xbzrle_page might return '0' to mean that the page didn't
>> need sending since it was the same as the last sent version;
>> in this case we can't update 'last_sent_block' since we didn't
>> actually send it.
>>
>> Symptom: 'Illegal RAM offset 1018000' as we try and send a page
>>         to the wrong RAMBlock;  potentially that could be a data
>>         corruption if you were really unlucky.
>>
>> Fixes: 84e7b80a05c0c44b90533c6cd2f1db5c932ccf77
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  migration/ram.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
>> index 1eb155a..0490f00 100644
>> --- a/migration/ram.c
>> +++ b/migration/ram.c
>> @@ -716,6 +716,9 @@ static int save_zero_page(QEMUFile *f, RAMBlock *block, ram_addr_t offset,
>>   * ram_save_page: Send the given page to the stream
>>   *
>>   * Returns: Number of pages written.
>> + *          < 0 - error
>> + *          >=0 - Number of pages written - this might legally be 0
>> + *                if xbzrle noticed the page was the same.
>>   *
>>   * @f: QEMUFile where to send the data
>>   * @block: block that contains the page we want to send
>> @@ -1249,7 +1252,13 @@ static int ram_save_target_page(MigrationState *ms, QEMUFile *f,
>>          if (unsentmap) {
>>              clear_bit(dirty_ram_abs >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS, unsentmap);
>>          }
>> -        last_sent_block = block;
>> +        /* Only update last_sent_block if a block was actually sent; xbzrle
>> +         * might have decided the page was identical so didn't bother writing
>> +         * to the stream.
>> +         */
>> +        if (res > 0) {
>> +            last_sent_block = block;
>> +        }
>>      }
>>
>>      return res;
>
> This sounds like we should probably put this into 2.5; I'm happy
> to do so if it gets review by tomorrow afternoon and Juan/Amit
> agree.

Yeap, did the review by.  Do you want a pull request, or just pick it
directly?

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix xbzrle vs last_sent_block update

[Peter Maydell]

On 11 December 2015 at 12:25, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> wrote:
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>> This sounds like we should probably put this into 2.5; I'm happy
>> to do so if it gets review by tomorrow afternoon and Juan/Amit
>> agree.
>
> Yeap, did the review by.  Do you want a pull request, or just pick it
> directly?

I'll just apply it directly.

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix xbzrle vs last_sent_block update

[Peter Maydell]

On 11 December 2015 at 12:52, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 11 December 2015 at 12:25, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> This sounds like we should probably put this into 2.5; I'm happy
>>> to do so if it gets review by tomorrow afternoon and Juan/Amit
>>> agree.
>>
>> Yeap, did the review by.  Do you want a pull request, or just pick it
>> directly?
>
> I'll just apply it directly.

Now applied, thanks.

-- PMM