qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] rbd: Possible regression in 2.9 RCs


From: Alexandru Avadanii
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] rbd: Possible regression in 2.9 RCs
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:05:29 +0000

c7cacb3e7a2e9fdf929c993b98268e4179147cbb is the first bad commit
    block/rbd: parse all options via bdrv_parse_filename

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Avadanii
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 3:52 AM
> To: 'Eric Blake'; address@hidden
> Cc: svc-armband; Jeff Cody; Markus Armbruster
> Subject: RE: [Qemu-devel] rbd: Possible regression in 2.9 RCs
> 
> Hi, Eric,
> Thank you for looking into this!
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Blake [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 3:40 AM
> > To: Alexandru Avadanii; address@hidden
> > Cc: svc-armband; Jeff Cody; Markus Armbruster
> > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] rbd: Possible regression in 2.9 RCs
> >
> > On 03/30/2017 06:42 PM, Alexandru Avadanii wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > While testing out 2.9.0-rc2 on AArch64, we noticed a possible
> > > regression in
> > QEMU, related to parsing -drive 'file=rbd/...':
> > >> "conf option 6789 has no value".
> > >
> > > Instance logs [1].
> >
> > Pastebins don't last forever; it helps to paste the actual error
> > message in the email for archival purposes, and to make it easier for
> > readers to see your problem without having to chase URLs:
> >
> > 2017-03-30T20:02:27.499695Z qemu-system-aarch64: -drive
> > file=rbd:volumes/volume-ea141b5c-cdb3-4765-910d-
> >
> e7008b209a70:id=compute:key=AQAVkvxXAAAAABAA9ZxWFYdRmV+DSwKr
> >
> 7BKKXg==:auth_supported=cephx\;none:mon_host=192.168.1.2\:6789,form
> > at=raw,if=none,id=drive-virtio-disk0,serial=ea141b5c-cdb3-4765-910d-
> > e7008b209a70,cache=writeback:
> > conf option 6789 has no value
> >
> > Looking at that, the only instance of 6789 that I see is the
> > 'mon_host=192.168.1.2\:6789,' portion.  I bet what is happening is
> > that we are mis-parsing the string, and trying to treat it as a
> > key-values pair.  In other words, it's probably an unintended
> > regression introduced in the range of 7830f909..0a55679b by Jeff [3]
> > or in Markus' cleanups between f51c363c..2836284d [4].
> >
> > On the bright side, we still have time to fix it before 2.9 goes
> > final, now that you called it to our attention.
> >
> > > Occasionally, we get "conf option too long", with the same effect.
> > >
> > > We bisected this manually between 2.8.0 (working ok with the above
> > > cmd)
> > and 2.9.0-rc2, and the problematic change seems to be the merge point [2].
> >
> > I suspect you didn't run the bisect quite correctly, as that merge
> > point has nothing to do with block/rbd.c.
> 
> I suspect that too, sorry. I'll redo this tomorrow and get back.
> 
> >
> > >
> > > [1] http://paste.openstack.org/show/604938/
> > > [2] https://github.com/qemu/qemu/commit/9a81b79
> > >
> >
> > [3]
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-02/msg07506.html
> > [4]
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-03/msg05565.html
> >
> > --
> > Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
> > Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


reply via email to

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