Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] block: add 'backing' option to drive_add

[Kevin Wolf]

Am 18.06.2013 um 10:11 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> On Tue, 06/18 09:51, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 18.06.2013 um 09:00 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> > > On Tue, 06/18 08:32, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > > Am 18.06.2013 um 05:58 hat Fam Zheng geschrieben:
> > > > > On Mon, 06/17 17:12, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > > > > > Am 17.06.2013 um 16:46 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> > > > > > > Il 17/06/2013 16:26, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
> > > > > > > > Am 17.06.2013 um 16:01 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben:
> > > > > > > >> Il 17/06/2013 15:52, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
> > > > > > > >>> It's not a new thought that we need to change the block layer 
> > > > > > > >>> so that a
> > > > > > > >>> BlockDriverState can't be "empty", but that one 
> > > > > > > >>> BlockDriverState always
> > > > > > > >>> refers to one image. If you change media, you attach a 
> > > > > > > >>> different
> > > > > > > >>> BlockDriverState to the device. Once you have this, you can 
> > > > > > > >>> start
> > > > > > > >>> refcounting BlockDriverStates, so that the backing file 
> > > > > > > >>> remains usable
> > > > > > > >>> while the guest device already uses a different image.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Not that it's it easy to get there...
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I'm not sure that is safe to do.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Consider the case where the guest switches from A to B during 
> > > > > > > >> backup,
> > > > > > > >> and then from B to A.  You get two BDS for the same file, 
> > > > > > > >> which pretty
> > > > > > > >> much means havoc.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Well, yes, it means that the management tool needs to know what 
> > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > doing. It shouldn't create a second BDS for A, but reattach the 
> > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > existing one.
> In this case do you mean mgmt tool should give a name of drive instead
> of file path? I like this idea, and further more, why don't we make QEMU
> smarter to bdrv_find_by_filename() the existing BDS?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > How?  That would require the management tool to know the full 
> > > > > > > chain of
> > > > > > > BDSes that were opened in the past.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > They better know on which files they are operating. It's not like 
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > management could be unaware of running backup jobs or things like 
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is there any case that QEMU needs to have two BDS pointing to the same
> > > > > file?
> > > > 
> > > > No, I think there's no case where this would make sense.
> > > > 
> > > > > If not, can we try to detect such case  on opening and try to
> > > > > reuse the bs?
> > > > 
> > > > We can't do it reliably, think about symlinks or even hard links, or
> > > > things like /dev/fdset/..., let alone remote protocols that refer to the
> > > > same image file etc.
> > > > 
> > > > We can check the obvious cases and error out for them, but that's about
> > > > what we can do. I don't think we should try to fix things automagically
> > > > when we can't do it right.
> > > 
> > > It's impossible to know a remote protocol points to the same image with
> > > local file path, that's not in QEMU's scope, but we have a good chance
> > > to detect (strcmp with existing bs->filename) and error out Paolo's
> > > A-B-A problem, don't we?
> > 
> > Yes, catching 50% of the misuses is better than catching none.
> > 
> > My point was that we shouldn't "try to reuse the bs" when we detect that
> > the file is already open, because that makes it a feature that users are
> > supposed to use and that doesn't work consistently across backends and
> > will therefore cause endless pain.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > 
> > If we detect it (in order to protect the user from his own mistakes), we
> > must treat it as a misuse and return an error.
> > 
> 
> IIUC, block job is not supposed to affect the guest or the source image,
> so from user's PoV, switching to another image, then switching back
> seems reasonable, even when a block job runs in the background. As we
> know it's already open, could we reattach to it instead, as you
> suggested above?

This is none of the block layer's business. The management tool needs to
know this and reuse an existing BlockDriverState instead of creating a
new one. Everything else will lead to an inconsistent QMP API.

Not that "management tool" could in theory also mean the GTK GUI, so I'm
not totally excluding that qemu could be involved in this, but the block
layer is the wrong level to address this.

Kevin