From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C472C433EF for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 14:17:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 715C660C49 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 14:17:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 715C660C49 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:59394 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mmcnS-0003jd-KK for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 09:17:22 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44788) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mmcls-0002ok-Jq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 09:15:44 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:48402) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mmclp-00021m-8k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 09:15:44 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1636985740; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MpS8gCNrZGqAirb29HfxC9bgVt5pHtPCVVLRJi4MPhk=; b=D7gdxwLu1TviwW8eyIp3O+r/HxdS56lcfVkguNAuSkUadTkD4GZXxDcoEWYAe5xrSgtNX/ zzkwvqpPcuG2WE6CiVBlcuUdmV/gv0JWmXkEvM4248cXgucoQrmPpNQK7Dei6qWFHtjVuP NHcE3Cbd4rTfN/4gWLeZNHTwIch+t3E= Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-466-SqM_iuZiPsm3tGyzBirf3g-1; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 09:15:39 -0500 X-MC-Unique: SqM_iuZiPsm3tGyzBirf3g-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id n41-20020a05600c502900b003335ab97f41so7074910wmr.3 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 06:15:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MpS8gCNrZGqAirb29HfxC9bgVt5pHtPCVVLRJi4MPhk=; b=M744g8Zb01t/AO70f+NgDGnufDeGXNVqGp2BQ8M6rgpbrnETJ4yu9uNqCiDH4bpDpO mlQkKQWIoxnV32vjdCuCIVzNO67Srr+H+/6R2swnuyBKXzsY/pGtowqTsOhIh9o3RXMi fNDVTZgWrCwiBvJj+9RxkKGg1jpcCFpC+hnQjcBwmYJD8VnxYgczp0SsHiY9NT4d2zpN eSjmih13UBR3nNsyILuNysFtKUzrjNar5XwjyQrEibxqT25fW19LMWyv6YxkJzWV9Wmg ntjWbZru8E1rZOj4H3IC49wQoZ3NxfDK+ttBvXKTZ9MyGvigAklrF3EayIoVz1EyETaz 1iXA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533lXE0lYkoskDsqQKU62Y2rdkj2tZMFjmXTvumPs+FSMxO6IkU4 6ZVyC2QiYnuD9TnqwFjpqDGO1wB75z/IlEKCdvPaLHf+Vcux7IclYao30yH9HG2qcirllchZU8o AwBwVLY5rIyM/zhc= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:59aa:: with SMTP id p10mr46813524wrr.210.1636985738212; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 06:15:38 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyVFNCZXcvEoD4OJrIA7Bbg9KuQZJafR3iwVStqwPgAgbPGNR88x+M9Q86rWBwa532qPsJCyA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:59aa:: with SMTP id p10mr46813468wrr.210.1636985737936; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 06:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2a02:8071:5055:3f20:7ad9:a400:6d51:83e6? ([2a02:8071:5055:3f20:7ad9:a400:6d51:83e6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w4sm2566560wrs.88.2021.11.15.06.15.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Nov 2021 06:15:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 15:15:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 20/25] block_int-common.h: assertion in the callers of BlockDriver function pointers From: Hanna Reitz To: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito , qemu-block@nongnu.org References: <20211025101735.2060852-1-eesposit@redhat.com> <20211025101735.2060852-21-eesposit@redhat.com> <83cf9336-e37d-bf48-961c-8103b5c7bc62@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <83cf9336-e37d-bf48-961c-8103b5c7bc62@redhat.com> Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=hreitz@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=hreitz@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -57 X-Spam_score: -5.8 X-Spam_bar: ----- X-Spam_report: (-5.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.7, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-2.278, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kevin Wolf , Fam Zheng , Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy , =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P=2e_Berrang=c3=a9?= , Eduardo Habkost , Juan Quintela , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, John Snow , Richard Henderson , Markus Armbruster , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , Eric Blake Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 15.11.21 13:48, Hanna Reitz wrote: > On 25.10.21 12:17, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito >> Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi >> --- >>   block.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ >>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/block.c b/block.c >> index 94bff5c757..40c4729b8d 100644 >> --- a/block.c >> +++ b/block.c > > [...] > >> @@ -2148,6 +2152,7 @@ static void bdrv_child_perm(BlockDriverState >> *bs, BlockDriverState *child_bs, >>                               uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared) >>   { >>       assert(bs->drv && bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm); >> +    assert(qemu_in_main_thread()); >>       bs->drv->bdrv_child_perm(bs, c, role, reopen_queue, >>                                parent_perm, parent_shared, >>                                nperm, nshared); > > (Should’ve noticed earlier, but only did now...) > > First, this function is indirectly called by bdrv_refresh_perms(). I > understand that all perm-related functions are classified as GS. > > However, bdrv_co_invalidate_cache() invokes bdrv_refresh_perms. Being > declared in block/coroutine.h, it’s an I/O function, so it mustn’t > call such a GS function. BlockDriver.bdrv_co_invalidate_cache(), > bdrv_invalidate_cache(), and blk_invalidate_cache() are also > classified as I/O functions. Perhaps all of these functions should be > classified as GS functions?  I believe their callers and their purpose > would allow for this. > > > Second, it’s called by bdrv_child_refresh_perms(), which is called by > block_crypto_amend_options_generic_luks().  This function is called by > block_crypto_co_amend_luks(), which is a BlockDriver.bdrv_co_amend > implementation, which is classified as an I/O function. > > Honestly, I don’t know how to fix that mess.  The best would be if we > could make the perm functions thread-safe and classify them as I/O, > but it seems to me like that’s impossible (I sure hope I’m wrong).  On > the other hand, .bdrv_co_amend very much strikes me like a GS > function, but it isn’t.  I’m afraid it must work on nodes that are not > in the main context, and it launches a job, so AFAIU we absolutely > cannot run it under the BQL. > > It almost seems to me like we’d need a thread-safe variant of the perm > functions that’s allowed to fail when it cannot guarantee thread > safety or something.  Or perhaps I’m wrong and the perm functions can > actually be classified as thread-safe and I/O, that’d be great… Hm.  Can we perhaps let block_crypto_amend_options_generic_luks() take the BQL just for the permission adjustment (i.e. the bdrv_child_refresh_perms() call)?  Would that work? :/ Hanna