On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 06:25:33AM +0000, Raphael Norwitz wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 10:48:09AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 05:29:06AM +0000, Raphael Norwitz wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:55:00AM +0200, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 05:17:01PM +0000, Raphael Norwitz wrote:
> > > > > > In the vhost-user-blk-test, as of now there is nothing stoping
> > > > > > vhost-user-blk in QEMU writing to the socket right after forking off the
> > > > > > storage daemon before it has a chance to come up properly, leaving the
> > > > > > test hanging forever. This intermittently hanging test has caused QEMU
> > > > > > automation failures reported multiple times on the mailing list [1].
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This change makes the storage-daemon notify the vhost-user-blk-test
> > > > > > that it is fully initialized and ready to handle client connections by
> > > > > > creating a pidfile on initialiation. This ensures that the storage-daemon
> > > > > > backend won't miss vhost-user messages and thereby resolves the hang.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_qemu-2Ddevel_CAFEAcA8kYpz9LiPNxnWJAPSjc-3Dnv532bEdyfynaBeMeohqBp3A-40mail.gmail.com_&d=DwIBAg&c=s883GpUCOChKOHiocYtGcg&r=In4gmR1pGzKB8G5p6LUrWqkSMec2L5EtXZow_FZNJZk&m=fB3Xs9HB_Joc1WbeoKGaipFGQA7TPiMQPKa9OS04FM8&s=buSM5F3BMoUQEmVsEOXaCdERM0onDwoqit7nbLblkVs&e= 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hey Stefan,
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi Raphael,
> > > > > I would like to understand the issue that is being worked around in the
> > > > > patch.
> > > > > 
> > > > > QEMU should be okay with listen fd passing. The qemu-storage-daemon
> > > > > documentation even contains example code for this
> > > > > (docs/tools/qemu-storage-daemon.rst) and that may need to be updated if
> > > > > listen fd passing is fundamentally broken.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The issue is that the "client" (in this case vhost-user-blk in QEMU) can
> > > > proceed to use the socket before the storage-daemon has a chance to
> > > > properly start up and monitor it. This is nothing unique to the
> > > > storage-daemon - I've seen races like this happen happend with different
> > > > vhost-user backends before.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes - I do think the docs can be improved to explicitly state that the
> > > > storage-daemon must be allowed to properly initialize before any data is
> > > > sent over the socket. Maybe we should even perscribe the use of the pidfile
> > > > option?
> > > > 
> > > > > Can you share more details about the problem?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Did you see my analysis [1]?
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_qemu-2Ddevel_20210827165253.GA14291-40raphael-2Ddebian-2Ddev_&d=DwIBAg&c=s883GpUCOChKOHiocYtGcg&r=In4gmR1pGzKB8G5p6LUrWqkSMec2L5EtXZow_FZNJZk&m=fB3Xs9HB_Joc1WbeoKGaipFGQA7TPiMQPKa9OS04FM8&s=o_S2kKO4RQnWw2QnzVi7dgOwgiPbusI9Zche7mWV22I&e= 
> > > > 
> > > > Basically QEMU sends VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES across the vhost
> > > > socket and the storage daemon never receives it. Looking at the
> > > > QEMU state we see it is stuck waiting for a vhost-user response. Meanwhile
> > > > the storage-daemon never receives any message to begin with. AFAICT
> > > > there is nothing stopping QEMU from running first and sending a message
> > > > before vhost-user-blk comes up, and from testing we can see that waiting
> > > > for the storage-daemon to come up resolves the problem completely.
> > > 
> > > The root cause has not been determined yet. QEMU should accept the
> > > incoming connection and then read the previously-sent
> > > VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES message. There is no reason at the
> > > Sockets API level why the message should get lost, so there is probably
> > > a QEMU bug here.
> > 
> > Right. However the test does randomly hang for people and it's
> > not really of interest to anyone. I think we should apply the
> > work-around but yes we should keep working on the root cause, too.
> >
> 
> From my end I have spent some more time looking at it but have not made
> much progress. I was hopeful that David HiIdenbrand’s libvhost-user bug
> fixes may have resolved it, but I tested and even with his patches I
> still see the hang.
> 
> I am determined to get to the bottom of it, but I’m not sure how long it
> will take. If this is impacting people than I agree with merging the
> patch as a workaround.
> 
> From my end, I will send a v6 updating the commit message and add
> comments to make it clear that the patch is a workaround and the root
> cause has not been determined yet. Sound good?

Michael is eager to merge a fix so the tests stop hanging, so that
sounds good.

If I have time I'll take a look too and share anything I find.

Stefan