qemu-stable
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Stable-8.1.5 27/36] block/io: clear BDRV_BLOCK_RECURSE flag after recur


From: Michael Tokarev
Subject: [Stable-8.1.5 27/36] block/io: clear BDRV_BLOCK_RECURSE flag after recursing in bdrv_co_block_status
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 20:48:32 +0300

From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>

Using fleecing backup like in [0] on a qcow2 image (with metadata
preallocation) can lead to the following assertion failure:

> bdrv_co_do_block_status: Assertion `!(ret & BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO)' failed.

In the reproducer [0], it happens because the BDRV_BLOCK_RECURSE flag
will be set by the qcow2 driver, so the caller will recursively check
the file child. Then the BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO set too. Later up the call
chain, in bdrv_co_do_block_status() for the snapshot-access driver,
the assertion failure will happen, because both flags are set.

To fix it, clear the recurse flag after the recursive check was done.

In detail:

> #0  qcow2_co_block_status

Returns 0x45 = BDRV_BLOCK_RECURSE | BDRV_BLOCK_DATA |
BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID.

> #1  bdrv_co_do_block_status

Because of the data flag, bdrv_co_do_block_status() will now also set
BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED. Because of the recurse flag,
bdrv_co_do_block_status() for the bdrv_file child will be called,
which returns 0x16 = BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED | BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID |
BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO. Now the return value inherits the zero flag.

Returns 0x57 = BDRV_BLOCK_RECURSE | BDRV_BLOCK_DATA |
BDRV_BLOCK_OFFSET_VALID | BDRV_BLOCK_ALLOCATED | BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO.

> #2  bdrv_co_common_block_status_above
> #3  bdrv_co_block_status_above
> #4  bdrv_co_block_status
> #5  cbw_co_snapshot_block_status
> #6  bdrv_co_snapshot_block_status
> #7  snapshot_access_co_block_status
> #8  bdrv_co_do_block_status

Return value is propagated all the way up to here, where the assertion
failure happens, because BDRV_BLOCK_RECURSE and BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO are
both set.

> #9  bdrv_co_common_block_status_above
> #10 bdrv_co_block_status_above
> #11 block_copy_block_status
> #12 block_copy_dirty_clusters
> #13 block_copy_common
> #14 block_copy_async_co_entry
> #15 coroutine_trampoline

[0]:

> #!/bin/bash
> rm /tmp/disk.qcow2
> ./qemu-img create /tmp/disk.qcow2 -o preallocation=metadata -f qcow2 1G
> ./qemu-img create /tmp/fleecing.qcow2 -f qcow2 1G
> ./qemu-img create /tmp/backup.qcow2 -f qcow2 1G
> ./qemu-system-x86_64 --qmp stdio \
> --blockdev 
> qcow2,node-name=node0,file.driver=file,file.filename=/tmp/disk.qcow2 \
> --blockdev 
> qcow2,node-name=node1,file.driver=file,file.filename=/tmp/fleecing.qcow2 \
> --blockdev 
> qcow2,node-name=node2,file.driver=file,file.filename=/tmp/backup.qcow2 \
> <<EOF
> {"execute": "qmp_capabilities"}
> {"execute": "blockdev-add", "arguments": { "driver": "copy-before-write", 
> "file": "node0", "target": "node1", "node-name": "node3" } }
> {"execute": "blockdev-add", "arguments": { "driver": "snapshot-access", 
> "file": "node3", "node-name": "snap0" } }
> {"execute": "blockdev-backup", "arguments": { "device": "snap0", "target": 
> "node1", "sync": "full", "job-id": "backup0" } }
> EOF

Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@yandex-team.ru>
Message-id: 20240116154839.401030-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com
Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit 8a9be7992426c8920d4178e7dca59306a18c7a3a)
Signed-off-by: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>

diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
index 055fcf7438..83d1b1dfdc 100644
--- a/block/io.c
+++ b/block/io.c
@@ -2585,6 +2585,16 @@ bdrv_co_block_status(BlockDriverState *bs, bool 
want_zero,
                 ret |= (ret2 & BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO);
             }
         }
+
+        /*
+         * Now that the recursive search was done, clear the flag. Otherwise,
+         * with more complicated block graphs like snapshot-access ->
+         * copy-before-write -> qcow2, where the return value will be 
propagated
+         * further up to a parent bdrv_co_do_block_status() call, both the
+         * BDRV_BLOCK_RECURSE and BDRV_BLOCK_ZERO flags would be set, which is
+         * not allowed.
+         */
+        ret &= ~BDRV_BLOCK_RECURSE;
     }
 
 out:
-- 
2.39.2




reply via email to

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