From: dovgaluk <dovgaluk@ispras.ru>
To: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mreitz@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Race condition in overlayed qcow2?
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:35:21 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5fe1747e6e7b818d93fd9a7fd0434bed@ispras.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b5811027-388a-98db-fe73-93230b5e29ae@virtuozzo.com>
Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy писал 2020-02-21 13:09:
> 21.02.2020 12:49, dovgaluk wrote:
>> Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy писал 2020-02-20 12:36:
>>>>> 1 or 2 are ok, and 4 or 8 lead to the failures.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is strange. I could think, that it was caused by the bugs in
>>>>> deterministic CPU execution, but the first difference in logs
>>>>> occur in READ operation (I dump read/write buffers in
>>>>> blk_aio_complete).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aha, yes, looks strange.
>>>>
>>>> Then next steps:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Does problem hit into the same offset every time?
>>>> 2. Do we write to this region before this strange read?
>>>>
>>>> 2.1. If yes, we need to check that we read what we write.. You say
>>>> you dump buffers
>>>> in blk_aio_complete... I think it would be more reliable to dump at
>>>> start of
>>>> bdrv_co_pwritev and at end of bdrv_co_preadv. Also, guest may modify
>>>> its buffers
>>>> during operation which would be strange but possible.
>>>>
>>>> 2.2 If not, hmm...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Another idea to check: use blkverify
>>
>> I added logging of file descriptor and discovered that different
>> results are obtained
>> when reading from the backing file.
>> And even more - replay runs of the same recording produce different
>> results.
>> Logs show that there is a preadv race, but I can't figure out the
>> source of the failure.
>>
>> Log1:
>> preadv c 30467e00
>> preadv c 30960000
>> --- sum = a2e1e
>> bdrv_co_preadv_part complete offset: 30467e00 qiov_offset: 0 len: 8200
>> --- sum = 10cdee
>> bdrv_co_preadv_part complete offset: 30960000 qiov_offset: 8200 len:
>> ee00
>>
>> Log2:
>> preadv c 30467e00
>> --- sum = a2e1e
>> bdrv_co_preadv_part complete offset: 30467e00 qiov_offset: 0 len: 8200
>> preadv c 30960000
>> --- sum = f094f
>> bdrv_co_preadv_part complete offset: 30960000 qiov_offset: 8200 len:
>> ee00
>>
>>
>> Checksum calculation was added to preadv in file-posix.c
>>
>
> So, preadv in file-posix.c returns different results for the same
> offset, for file which is always opened in RO mode? Sounds impossible
> :)
True.
Maybe my logging is wrong?
static ssize_t
qemu_preadv(int fd, const struct iovec *iov, int nr_iov, off_t offset)
{
ssize_t res = preadv(fd, iov, nr_iov, offset);
qemu_log("preadv %x %"PRIx64"\n", fd, (uint64_t)offset);
int i;
uint32_t sum = 0;
int cnt = 0;
for (i = 0 ; i < nr_iov ; ++i) {
int j;
for (j = 0 ; j < (int)iov[i].iov_len ; ++j)
{
sum += ((uint8_t*)iov[i].iov_base)[j];
++cnt;
}
}
qemu_log("size: %x sum: %x\n", cnt, sum);
assert(cnt == res);
return res;
}
This code prints preadv checksum.
But when I calculate the same with the standalone program, then it gives
me another values of the checksums for the same offsets:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/uio.h>
unsigned char buf[0x100000];
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
if (argc < 4) return 1;
int f = open(argv[1], O_RDONLY);
unsigned int cnt;
unsigned int offs;
sscanf(argv[2], "%x", &offs);
sscanf(argv[3], "%x", &cnt);
printf("file: %s offset: %x size: %x\n", argv[1], offs, cnt);
struct iovec iov = {buf, (size_t)cnt};
size_t sz = preadv(f, &iov, 1, offs);
printf("read %x\n", (int)sz);
int i;
unsigned int sum = 0;
for (i = 0 ; i < cnt ; ++i)
sum += buf[i];
printf("sum = %x\n", sum);
}
Pavel Dovgalyuk
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-21 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-19 14:32 Race condition in overlayed qcow2? dovgaluk
2020-02-19 16:07 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-02-20 8:31 ` dovgaluk
2020-02-20 9:05 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-02-20 9:36 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-02-21 9:49 ` dovgaluk
2020-02-21 10:09 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-02-21 12:35 ` dovgaluk [this message]
2020-02-21 13:23 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-02-25 5:58 ` dovgaluk
2020-02-25 7:27 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-02-25 7:56 ` dovgaluk
2020-02-25 9:19 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-02-25 9:26 ` Pavel Dovgalyuk
2020-02-25 10:07 ` Pavel Dovgalyuk
2020-02-25 11:47 ` Kevin Wolf
2020-02-20 10:00 ` Pavel Dovgalyuk
2020-02-20 11:26 ` Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
2020-02-20 11:48 ` Pavel Dovgalyuk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5fe1747e6e7b818d93fd9a7fd0434bed@ispras.ru \
--to=dovgaluk@ispras.ru \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=mreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=vsementsov@virtuozzo.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).