From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: "QEMU Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: socket chardevs: data loss when other end closes connection?
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:29:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y1Al0bfisa0ySez2@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9_fkO2ftjicxp5Ufe3KZE1Br6H=o5GHgLeJ5zchi6Lxw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 05:26:28PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 at 20:21, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 06:55:08PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > How is this intended to work? I guess the socket ought to go
> > > into some kind of "disconnecting" state, but not actually do
> > > a tcp_chr_disconnect() until all the data has been read via
> > > tcp_chr_read() and it's finally got an EOF indication back from
> > > tcp_chr_recv() ?
> >
> > Right, this is basically broken by (lack of) design right now.
> >
> > The main problem here is that we're watching the socket twice.
> > One set of callbacks added with io_add_watch_poll, and then
> > a second callback added with qio_chanel_create_watch just for
> > G_IO_HUP.
> >
> > We need there to be only 1 callback, and when that callback
> > gets G_IO_IN, it should *ignore* G_IO_HUP until tcp_chr_recv
> > returns 0 to indicate EOF. This would cause tcp_chr_read to
> > be invoked repeatedly with G_IO_IN | G_IO_HUP, as we read
> > "halt\r" one byte at a time.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> I've filed https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/1264 to
> track this socket chardev bug.
>
> It did occur to me that there's a potential complication with
> the 'server' mode of this chardev: does it need to cope with
> a new connection coming into the server socket while the old
> fd is still hanging around in this "waiting for the guest to
> read it" state? Currently tcp_chr_disconnect_locked() is where
> we restart listening for new connections, so QEMU wouldn't
> accept any new connection until the guest had got round to
> completely draining the data from the old one.
That's fine IMHO. We never actually stop listening at a socket
level, we just stop trying to accept(). So any new client will
get queued until we've drained data, then accept()d and its
new data handled
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-19 16:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-18 17:55 socket chardevs: data loss when other end closes connection? Peter Maydell
2022-10-18 19:21 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2022-10-19 16:26 ` Peter Maydell
2022-10-19 16:29 ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
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=Y1Al0bfisa0ySez2@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=marcandre.lureau@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=philmd@linaro.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).