[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 0/7] file descriptor passing using pass-fd

From: Luiz Capitulino
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 0/7] file descriptor passing using pass-fd
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:05:10 -0300

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:06:56 -0400
Corey Bryant <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 07/04/2012 04:09 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 03.07.2012 20:21, schrieb Corey Bryant:
> >> On 07/03/2012 02:00 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>> On 07/03/2012 11:46 AM, Corey Bryant wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, I think adding a +1 to the refcount for the monitor makes sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm a bit unsure how to increment the refcount when a monitor reconnects
> >>>> though.  Maybe it is as simple as adding a +1 to each fd's refcount when
> >>>> the next QMP monitor connects.
> >>>
> >>> Or maybe delay a +1 until after a 'query-fds' - it is not until the
> >>> monitor has reconnected and learned what fds it should be aware of that
> >>> incrementing the refcount again makes sense.  But that would mean making
> >>> 'query-fds' track whether this is the first call since the monitor
> >>> reconnected, as it shouldn't normally increase refcounts.
> >>
> >> This doesn't sound ideal.
> >
> > Yes, it's less than ideal.
> >
> >>> The other alternative is that the monitor never re-increments a
> >>> refcount.  Once a monitor disconnects, that fd is lost to the monitor,
> >>> and a reconnected monitor must pass in a new fd to be re-associated with
> >>> the fdset.  In other words, the monitor's use of an fd is a one-way
> >>> operation, starting life in use but ending at the first disconnect or
> >>> remove-fd.
> >>
> >> I would vote for this 2nd alternative.  As long as we're not introducing
> >> an fd leak.  And I don't think we are if we decrement the refcount on
> >> remove-fd or on QMP disconnect.
> >
> > In fact, I believe this one is even worse. I can already see hacks like
> > adding a dummy FD with invalid flags and removing it again just to
> > regain control over the fdset...
> >
> > You earlier suggestion made a lot of sense to me: Whenever a new QMP
> > monitor is connected, increase the refcount. That is, as long as any
> > monitor is there, don't drop any fdsets unless explicitly requested via QMP.
> Ok.  So refcount would be incremented (for the fd or fdset, whatever we 
> decide on) when QMP reconnects.  I'm assuming we wouldn't wait until 
> after a query-fds call.

I'm not sure this is a good idea because we will leak fds if the client forgets
about the fds when re-connecting (ie. it was restarted) or if a different
client connects to QMP.

If we really want to do that, I think that the right way of doing this is to
add a command for clients to re-again ownership of the fds on reconnection.

But to be honest, I don't fully understand why this is needed.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]