| Message ID | 20190305182908.13557-1-eblake@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | iotests: Wait for qemu to end in 223 | expand |
Am 05.03.2019 um 19:29 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > When iotest 223 was first written, it didn't matter if we waited for > the qemu process to clean up. But with the introduction of a later > qemu-nbd process trying to reuse the same file, there is a race where > even though the asynchronous qemu process has responded to "quit", it > has not yet had time to unlock the file and exit, resulting in: > > -[{ "start": 0, "length": 65536, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": false}, > -{ "start": 65536, "length": 2031616, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": true}, > -{ "start": 2097152, "length": 2097152, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": false}] > +qemu-nbd: Failed to blk_new_open 'tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/t.qcow2': Failed to get shared "write" lock > +Is another process using the image [tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/t.qcow2]? > +qemu-img: Could not open 'driver=nbd,server.type=unix,server.path=tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/qemu-nbd.sock,x-dirty-bitmap=qemu:dirty-bitmap:b': Failed to connect socket tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/qemu-nbd.sock: Connection refused > +./common.nbd: line 33: kill: (11122) - No such process > > Fixes: ddd09448 > Reported-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com> > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Makes sense to me. Berto, can you test it? Kevin
On Tue 05 Mar 2019 07:29:08 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote: > When iotest 223 was first written, it didn't matter if we waited for > the qemu process to clean up. But with the introduction of a later > qemu-nbd process trying to reuse the same file, there is a race where > even though the asynchronous qemu process has responded to "quit", it > has not yet had time to unlock the file and exit, resulting in: > > -[{ "start": 0, "length": 65536, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": false}, > -{ "start": 65536, "length": 2031616, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": true}, > -{ "start": 2097152, "length": 2097152, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": false}] > +qemu-nbd: Failed to blk_new_open 'tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/t.qcow2': Failed to get shared "write" lock > +Is another process using the image [tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/t.qcow2]? > +qemu-img: Could not open 'driver=nbd,server.type=unix,server.path=tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/qemu-nbd.sock,x-dirty-bitmap=qemu:dirty-bitmap:b': Failed to connect socket tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/qemu-nbd.sock: Connection refused > +./common.nbd: line 33: kill: (11122) - No such process > > Fixes: ddd09448 > Reported-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com> > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Tested-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com> Berto
On 3/6/19 7:03 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote: > On Tue 05 Mar 2019 07:29:08 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote: >> When iotest 223 was first written, it didn't matter if we waited for >> the qemu process to clean up. But with the introduction of a later >> qemu-nbd process trying to reuse the same file, there is a race where >> even though the asynchronous qemu process has responded to "quit", it >> has not yet had time to unlock the file and exit, resulting in: >> >> -[{ "start": 0, "length": 65536, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": false}, >> -{ "start": 65536, "length": 2031616, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": true}, >> -{ "start": 2097152, "length": 2097152, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": false}] >> +qemu-nbd: Failed to blk_new_open 'tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/t.qcow2': Failed to get shared "write" lock >> +Is another process using the image [tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/t.qcow2]? >> +qemu-img: Could not open 'driver=nbd,server.type=unix,server.path=tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/qemu-nbd.sock,x-dirty-bitmap=qemu:dirty-bitmap:b': Failed to connect socket tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/qemu-nbd.sock: Connection refused >> +./common.nbd: line 33: kill: (11122) - No such process >> >> Fixes: ddd09448 >> Reported-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> > > Tested-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com> Thanks; will queue through my NBD tree this week.
Am 06.03.2019 um 14:04 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: > On 3/6/19 7:03 AM, Alberto Garcia wrote: > > On Tue 05 Mar 2019 07:29:08 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote: > >> When iotest 223 was first written, it didn't matter if we waited for > >> the qemu process to clean up. But with the introduction of a later > >> qemu-nbd process trying to reuse the same file, there is a race where > >> even though the asynchronous qemu process has responded to "quit", it > >> has not yet had time to unlock the file and exit, resulting in: > >> > >> -[{ "start": 0, "length": 65536, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": false}, > >> -{ "start": 65536, "length": 2031616, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": true}, > >> -{ "start": 2097152, "length": 2097152, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": false}] > >> +qemu-nbd: Failed to blk_new_open 'tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/t.qcow2': Failed to get shared "write" lock > >> +Is another process using the image [tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/t.qcow2]? > >> +qemu-img: Could not open 'driver=nbd,server.type=unix,server.path=tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/qemu-nbd.sock,x-dirty-bitmap=qemu:dirty-bitmap:b': Failed to connect socket tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/qemu-nbd.sock: Connection refused > >> +./common.nbd: line 33: kill: (11122) - No such process > >> > >> Fixes: ddd09448 > >> Reported-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> > > > > Tested-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com> > > Thanks; will queue through my NBD tree this week. Ah, if it doesn't go through my tree, you get my explicit: Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/223 b/tests/qemu-iotests/223 index f120a016460..c0a4f9c14b7 100755 --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/223 +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/223 @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ _send_qemu_cmd $QEMU_HANDLE '{"execute":"nbd-server-remove", _send_qemu_cmd $QEMU_HANDLE '{"execute":"nbd-server-stop"}' "return" _send_qemu_cmd $QEMU_HANDLE '{"execute":"nbd-server-stop"}' "error" # Again _send_qemu_cmd $QEMU_HANDLE '{"execute":"quit"}' "return" +wait=yes _cleanup_qemu echo echo "=== Use qemu-nbd as server ===" diff --git a/tests/qemu-iotests/223.out b/tests/qemu-iotests/223.out index 6476b77ba20..95c40a17ad7 100644 --- a/tests/qemu-iotests/223.out +++ b/tests/qemu-iotests/223.out @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ read 2097152/2097152 bytes at offset 2097152 {"return": {}} {"error": {"class": "GenericError", "desc": "NBD server not running"}} {"return": {}} +{"timestamp": {"seconds": TIMESTAMP, "microseconds": TIMESTAMP}, "event": "SHUTDOWN", "data": {"guest": false, "reason": "host-qmp-quit"}} === Use qemu-nbd as server ===
When iotest 223 was first written, it didn't matter if we waited for the qemu process to clean up. But with the introduction of a later qemu-nbd process trying to reuse the same file, there is a race where even though the asynchronous qemu process has responded to "quit", it has not yet had time to unlock the file and exit, resulting in: -[{ "start": 0, "length": 65536, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": false}, -{ "start": 65536, "length": 2031616, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": true}, -{ "start": 2097152, "length": 2097152, "depth": 0, "zero": false, "data": false}] +qemu-nbd: Failed to blk_new_open 'tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/t.qcow2': Failed to get shared "write" lock +Is another process using the image [tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/t.qcow2]? +qemu-img: Could not open 'driver=nbd,server.type=unix,server.path=tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/qemu-nbd.sock,x-dirty-bitmap=qemu:dirty-bitmap:b': Failed to connect socket tests/qemu-iotests/scratch/qemu-nbd.sock: Connection refused +./common.nbd: line 33: kill: (11122) - No such process Fixes: ddd09448 Reported-by: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> --- tests/qemu-iotests/223 | 1 + tests/qemu-iotests/223.out | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)