On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 08:17:14PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Quickly: the reason I haven't merged this yes is twofold:
> - I wasn't thrilled with the proposal at the time. It felt a bit
>   hackish, and bolted onto NBD so you could use it, but without defining
>   everything in the NBD protocol. "We're reading some data, but it's not
>   about you". That didn't feel right
>
> - There were a number of questions still unanswered (you're answering a
>   few below, so that's good).
> 
> For clarity, I have no objection whatsoever to adding more commands if
> they're useful, but I would prefer that they're also useful with NBD on
> its own, i.e., without requiring an initiation or correlation of some
> state through another protocol or network connection or whatever. If
> that's needed, that feels like I didn't do my job properly, if you get
> my point.

The out-of-band operations you are referring to are for dirty bitmap
management.  (The goal is to read out blocks that changed since the last
backup.)

The client does not access the live disk, instead it accesses a
read-only snapshot and the dirty information (so that it can copy out
only blocks that were written).  The client is allowed to read blocks
that are not dirty too.

If you want to implement the whole incremental backup workflow in NBD
then the client would first have to connect to the live disk, set up
dirty tracking, create a snapshot export, and then connect to that
snapshot.

That sounds like a big feature set and I'd argue it's for the control
plane (storage API) and not the data plane (NBD).  There were
discussions about transferring the dirty information via the control
plane but it seems more appropriate to it in the data plane since it is
block-level information.

I'm arguing that the NBD protocol doesn't need to support the
incremental backup workflow since it's a complex control plane concept.

Being able to read dirty information via NBD is useful for other block
backup applications, not just QEMU.  It could be used for syncing LVM
volumes across machines, for example, if someone implements an NBD+LVM
server.

Another issue with adding control plane operations is that you need to
begin considering privilege separation.  Should all NBD clients be able
to initiate snapshots, dirty tracking, etc or is some kind of access
control required to limit certain commands?  Not all clients require the
same privileges and so they shouldn't have access to the same set of
operations.

Stefan