[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 02/36] tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod: add test_parallel_perm_u
From: |
Kevin Wolf |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v2 02/36] tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod: add test_parallel_perm_update |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Jan 2021 15:05:21 +0100 |
Am 27.11.2020 um 15:44 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> Add test to show that simple DFS recursion order is not correct for
> permission update. Correct order is topological-sort order, which will
> be introduced later.
>
> Consider the block driver which has two filter children: one active
> with exclusive write access and one inactive with no specific
> permissions.
>
> And, these two children has a common base child, like this:
>
> ┌─────┐ ┌──────┐
> │ fl2 │ ◀── │ top │
> └─────┘ └──────┘
> │ │
> │ │ w
> │ ▼
> │ ┌──────┐
> │ │ fl1 │
> │ └──────┘
> │ │
> │ │ w
> │ ▼
> │ ┌──────┐
> └───────▶ │ base │
> └──────┘
>
> So, exclusive write is propagated.
>
> Assume, we want to make fl2 active instead of fl1.
> So, we set some option for top driver and do permission update.
>
> If permission update (remember, it's DFS) goes first through
> top->fl1->base branch it will succeed: it firstly drop exclusive write
> permissions and than apply them for another BdrvChildren.
> But if permission update goes first through top->fl2->base branch it
> will fail, as when we try to update fl2->base child, old not yet
> updated fl1->base child will be in conflict.
>
> Now test fails, so it runs only with -d flag. To run do
>
> ./test-bdrv-graph-mod -d -p /bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-perm-update
>
> from <build-directory>/tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
> tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c b/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c
> index 3b9e6f242f..27e3361a60 100644
> --- a/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c
> +++ b/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c
> @@ -232,6 +232,68 @@ static void test_parallel_exclusive_write(void)
> bdrv_unref(top);
> }
>
> +static void write_to_file_perms(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c,
> + BdrvChildRole role,
> + BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
> + uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared,
> + uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared)
> +{
> + if (bs->file && c == bs->file) {
> + *nperm = BLK_PERM_WRITE;
> + *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_WRITE;
> + } else {
> + *nperm = 0;
> + *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static BlockDriver bdrv_write_to_file = {
> + .format_name = "tricky-perm",
> + .bdrv_child_perm = write_to_file_perms,
> +};
> +
> +static void test_parallel_perm_update(void)
> +{
> + BlockDriverState *top = no_perm_node("top");
> + BlockDriverState *tricky =
> + bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_write_to_file, "tricky", BDRV_O_RDWR,
> + &error_abort);
> + BlockDriverState *base = no_perm_node("base");
> + BlockDriverState *fl1 = pass_through_node("fl1");
> + BlockDriverState *fl2 = pass_through_node("fl2");
> + BdrvChild *c_fl1, *c_fl2;
> +
> + bdrv_attach_child(top, tricky, "file", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_DATA,
> + &error_abort);
> + c_fl1 = bdrv_attach_child(tricky, fl1, "first", &child_of_bds,
> + BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, &error_abort);
> + c_fl2 = bdrv_attach_child(tricky, fl2, "second", &child_of_bds,
> + BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, &error_abort);
> + bdrv_attach_child(fl1, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
> BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED,
> + &error_abort);
> + bdrv_attach_child(fl2, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
> BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED,
> + &error_abort);
> + bdrv_ref(base);
> +
> + /* Select fl1 as first child to be active */
> + tricky->file = c_fl1;
> + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort);
> +
> + assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE);
> +
> + /* Now, try to switch active child and update permissions */
> + tricky->file = c_fl2;
> + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort);
> +
> + assert(c_fl2->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE);
> +
> + /* Switch once more, to not care about real child order in the list */
> + tricky->file = c_fl1;
> + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort);
> +
> + assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE);
Should we also assert in each case that the we don't hole the write
permission for the inactive child?
Kevin
- Re: [PATCH v2 02/36] tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod: add test_parallel_perm_update,
Kevin Wolf <=