[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/2] storage: Resolve storage driver crash

On 11/07/2017 08:38 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
> On 11/07/2017 04:36 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 03:53:08PM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
>>> Resolve a storage driver crash as a result of a long running
>>> storageVolCreateXML when the virStorageVolPoolRefreshThread is
>>> run as a result of a storageVolUpload complete and ran the
>>> virStoragePoolObjClearVols without checking if the creation
>>> code was currently processing a buildVol after incrementing
>>> the driver->asyncjob count.
>> I thought the whole point of refreshing the pool in a thread
>> was to have the storage driver usable for other things.
>> This effectively disables pool refresh during long-running
>> jobs.

Jan -

So I'm curious to know whether your comments amount to a NAK of the
design of the patches of if the explanation provided here was sufficient?

Tks -


> This would "disable" the refresh during a long running create/build job,
> but that's already being done as other than another create, not much can
> be done while a create/build is "in progress". The pool undefine,
> destroy, delete, and refresh calls are all blocked (they fail) until the
> create completes.
> The reason for virStorageVolPoolRefreshThread is that updateVol can be
> long running and once it's done (the stream is closed), it was desired
> that the pool sizing values be updated. That meant either refresh the
> entire pool (the easy way - theoretically) or update just the volume and
> adjust the pool sizing values with the delta from the upload (similar to
> how create/build alters the values).
> Unfortunately the latter is not possible (yet) because only a subset of
> pool types that support uploadVol also support refreshVol. But this
> really is only a "problem" for the intersection of those that support
> the buildVol too. That is the only reason we'd be blocking is if a pool
> type supports both buildVol/buildVolFrom and uploadVol - so the fs,
> logical, and vstorage pools.
> The virStoragePoolFCRefreshThread used similar type logic w/r/t
> refreshing the pool after a createVport completed. Here though, we're
> waiting for udev to work it's magic in creating the vHBA LUN. The
> asyncjob won't be > 0 for scsi pools yet, so perhaps patch 2 isn't
> necessary, but it's preventative.
> In any case, at this point in time I would think it's more desirable to
> block during the build/upload condition as opposed to crash.
> An "alternative" is to refresh the pool after a create vol rather than
> just altering the pool available/allocation values from the created
> volume target allocation. That way the VolPoolRefreshThread could just
> "exit" knowing that volCreate will do the update. However, this refresh
> could only happen when there are no asyncjobs outstanding. In the mean
> time the pool sizing values probably would still need to be updated if
> asyncjobs > 0 to avoid multiple create jobs from "exhausting" the pool
> because the sizing values weren't properly updated.
>>> The refreshThread needs to wait until all creation threads
>>> are completed so as to not alter the volume list while the
>>> volume is being built.
>>> Crash from valgrind is as follows (with a bit of editing):
>>> ==21309== Invalid read of size 8
>>> ==21309==    at 0x153E47AF: storageBackendUpdateVolTargetInfo
>>> ==21309==    by 0x153E4C30: virStorageBackendUpdateVolInfo
>>> ==21309==    by 0x153E52DE: virStorageBackendVolRefreshLocal
>>> ==21309==    by 0x153DE29E: storageVolCreateXML
>> This is a fault of storageVolCreateXML for using invalid objects
>> after dropping the locks.
> Partially, but the code also goes through the trouble of incrementing
> the pool->asyncjobs count and setting the voldef->building flag for what
> appears to be the reasoning that nothing else should modify the pool
> volume list while we create/build a new volume, but the refresh thread
> just ignores that. The asyncjobs was added in much simpler times in
> commit id '2cd9b2d8'.
> And this brings up a possible 3rd alternative. Perhaps the more real
> problem is that virStoragePoolObjClearVols and refreshPool processing is
> overly invasive with respect to free-ing the entire volume list and
> rebuilding it rather than perhaps doing some sort of more intelligent
> processing to "add" new volumes found in a pool that are not in the
> list, "remove" ones no longer in the pool that are in the list, and
> "update" those that are still in the list. That to me is outside the
> scope of this change, but a noble goal at some point in time.
> John
>> Jan
>>> ==21309==    by 0x562035B: virStorageVolCreateXML
>>> ==21309==    by 0x147366: remoteDispatchStorageVolCreateXML
>>> ...
>>> ==21309==  Address 0x2590a720 is 64 bytes inside a block of size 336
>>> free'd
>>> ==21309==    at 0x4C2F2BB: free
>>> ==21309==    by 0x54CB9FA: virFree
>>> ==21309==    by 0x55BC800: virStorageVolDefFree
>>> ==21309==    by 0x55BF1D8: virStoragePoolObjClearVols
>>> ==21309==    by 0x153D967E: virStorageVolPoolRefreshThread
>>> ...
>>> ==21309==  Block was alloc'd at
>>> ==21309==    at 0x4C300A5: calloc
>>> ==21309==    by 0x54CB483: virAlloc
>>> ==21309==    by 0x55BDC1F: virStorageVolDefParseXML
>>> ==21309==    by 0x55BDC1F: virStorageVolDefParseNode
>>> ==21309==    by 0x55BE5A4: virStorageVolDefParse
>>> ==21309==    by 0x153DDFF1: storageVolCreateXML
>>> ==21309==    by 0x562035B: virStorageVolCreateXML
>>> ==21309==    by 0x147366: remoteDispatchStorageVolCreateXML
>>> ...
>>> Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan redhat com>
>>> ---
>>> src/storage/storage_driver.c | 9 +++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> --
> libvir-list mailing list
> libvir-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]