Re: [PATCH 2/5] migration: Fix race on qemu_file_shutdown()

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 03:37:11PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 05:58:25PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 06:37:57PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > In qemu_file_shutdown(), there's a possible race if with current order of
> > > operation.  There're two major things to do:
> > > 
> > >   (1) Do real shutdown() (e.g. shutdown() syscall on socket)
> > >   (2) Update qemufile's last_error
> > > 
> > > We must do (2) before (1) otherwise there can be a race condition like:
> > > 
> > >       page receiver                     other thread
> > >       -------------                     ------------
> > >       qemu_get_buffer()
> > >                                         do shutdown()
> > >         returns 0 (buffer all zero)
> > >         (meanwhile we didn't check this retcode)
> > >       try to detect IO error
> > >         last_error==NULL, IO okay
> > >       install ALL-ZERO page
> > >                                         set last_error
> > >       --> guest crash!
> > > 
> > > To fix this, we can also check retval of qemu_get_buffer(), but not all
> > > APIs can be properly checked and ultimately we still need to go back to
> > > qemu_file_get_error().  E.g. qemu_get_byte() doesn't return error.
> > > 
> > > Maybe some day a rework of qemufile API is really needed, but for now keep
> > > using qemu_file_get_error() and fix it by not allowing that race condition
> > > to happen.  Here shutdown() is indeed special because the last_error was
> > > emulated.  For real -EIO errors it'll always be set when e.g. sendmsg()
> > > error triggers so we won't miss those ones, only shutdown() is a bit 
> > > tricky
> > > here.
> > 
> > The ultimate answer really is to stop using QEMUFile entirely and just
> > do migration with the QIOChannel objects directly. The work I did in the
> > last cycle to remove the QEMUFileOps callbacks was another piece of the
> > puzzle in moving in that direction, by ensuring that every QEMUFile is
> > now backed by a QIOChannel. All QEMUFile is doing now is adding the I/O
> > caching layer and some convenience APIs for I/O operations.
> > 
> > So the next step would be to add a  QIOChannelCached class that can wrap
> > over another QIOChannel, to add the I/O buffering functionality that
> > currently exists in QEMUFile. Once that's done, it'd be at the stage
> > where we could look at how to use QIOChannel APIs for VMstate. It would
> > likely involve wiring up an Error **errp  parameter into a great many
> > places so we get synchronous error propagation instead of out-of-band
> > error checking, so a phased transition would need to be figured out.
> 
> Yes, Error** sounds very good to have.
> 
> So far I'm not satisfied with qemufile api majorly because of that error
> handling, especially on *get() interfaces.
> 
> Besides that, do you have anything else in mind that would make
> QIOChannelCached better than qemufile (e.g. on how we do caching)?

Depends what you mean by better ? I think the caching code would be
a bit easier to understand, because QEMUFile gets a bit confusing
about which logic is used for read side and which is used for the
write side.

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 :|