From patchwork Fri Apr 30 10:51:10 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Kevin Wolf X-Patchwork-Id: 1472154 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org (client-ip=209.51.188.17; helo=lists.gnu.org; envelope-from=qemu-devel-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@nongnu.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=CQrS41s2; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FWqmn0lhyz9sX2 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 21:25:45 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:48760 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcRHC-0006pe-Tk for incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 07:25:43 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36352) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcQkc-0003gY-S0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 06:52:02 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:36249) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcQka-0002IF-0S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 06:52:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1619779919; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mKvkrsToDZGTY0s8+SAXCNmyp9LmhNs53k9JJAAUspw=; b=CQrS41s2GY4waeJXrZgRg3LS9N5zUHNizK8aso4OhlL56f0P07fp20jGEq3T06PUiuPXrY yWcD183lLxqD/sV3P0Lp1fjlPtKwMQ7mkG+VBD8kAPBVKVz06x5v6t9eff03vBgkxGTmjm vyagSwnfr1x5547HeGKu+yHjQDnO9h0= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-404-SvfWAzFMMouyUQZDas2TEQ-1; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 06:51:56 -0400 X-MC-Unique: SvfWAzFMMouyUQZDas2TEQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE0C0501ED; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merkur.fritz.box (ovpn-114-197.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.197]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEDB5F707; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:51:54 +0000 (UTC) From: Kevin Wolf To: qemu-block@nongnu.org Subject: [PULL 02/39] tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod: add test_parallel_perm_update Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 12:51:10 +0200 Message-Id: <20210430105147.125840-3-kwolf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20210430105147.125840-1-kwolf@redhat.com> References: <20210430105147.125840-1-kwolf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=kwolf@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=kwolf@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -29 X-Spam_score: -3.0 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.22, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy 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 /tests. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf Message-Id: <20210428151804.439460-3-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf --- tests/unit/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 116 insertions(+) diff --git a/tests/unit/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c b/tests/unit/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c index 80a9a20066..a8219b131e 100644 --- a/tests/unit/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c +++ b/tests/unit/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c @@ -238,6 +238,120 @@ 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, +}; + + +/* + * The following test shows that topological-sort order is required for + * permission update, simple DFS is not enough. + * + * 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. + * + * With simple DFS, if permission update 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. + * + * With topological-sort order we always update parents before children, so fl1 + * and fl2 are both updated when we update base and there is no conflict. + */ +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() eats child bs reference, so we need two @base + * references for two filters: + */ + bdrv_ref(base); + + 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); + + /* 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); + assert(!(c_fl2->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); + assert(!(c_fl1->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); + assert(!(c_fl2->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE)); + + bdrv_unref(top); +} + int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int i; @@ -262,6 +376,8 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) if (debug) { g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-exclusive-write", test_parallel_exclusive_write); + g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-perm-update", + test_parallel_perm_update); } return g_test_run();