Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxl: trigger attach events for devices attached before xl devd startup

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:49:19AM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:43:18AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:56:04AM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:31:17AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 07:35:47PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > When this daemon is started after creating backend device, that device
> > > > > will not be configured.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Racy situation:
> > > > > 1. driver domain is started
> > > > > 2. frontend domain is started (just after kicking driver domain off)
> > > > > 3. device in frontend domain is connected to the backend (as specified
> > > > >    in frontend domain configuration)
> > > > > 4. xl devd is started in driver domain
> > > > > 
> > > > > End result is that backend device in driver domain is not configured
> > > > > (like network interface is not enabled), so the device doesn't work.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fix this by artifically triggering events for devices already present 
> > > > > in
> > > > > xenstore before xl devd is started. Do this only after xenstore watch 
> > > > > is
> > > > > already registered, and only for devices not already initialized (in
> > > > > XenbusStateInitWait state).
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > 
> > > > > Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki 
> > > > > <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  tools/libxl/libxl.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl.c b/tools/libxl/libxl.c
> > > > > index 1c81239..99815a7 100644
> > > > > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl.c
> > > > > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl.c
> > > > > @@ -4743,8 +4743,16 @@ int libxl_device_events_handler(libxl_ctx *ctx,
> > > > >      uint32_t domid;
> > > > >      libxl__ddomain ddomain;
> > > > >      char *be_path;
> > > > > +    char **kinds = NULL, **domains = NULL, **devs = NULL;
> > > > > +    const char *sstate;
> > > > > +    char *state_path;
> > > > > +    int state;
> > > > > +    unsigned int nkinds, ndomains, ndevs;
> > > > > +    int i, j, k;
> > > > > +    xs_transaction_t t;
> > > > >  
> > > > >      ddomain.ao = ao;
> > > > > +    FILLZERO(ddomain.watch);
> > > > 
> > > > Is this a different bugfix or stray change?
> > > 
> > > To cleanly unregister watch and not do nothing if wasn't registered at
> > > all. If it isn't initialized, libxl__ev_xswatch_deregister call on
> > > not registered watch isn't harmless.
> > 
> > Right, I've realized that before your changes the function only registered 
> > the watch and exited, this is needed now.
> >  
> > > > >      LIBXL_SLIST_INIT(&ddomain.guests);
> > > > >  
> > > > >      rc = libxl__get_domid(gc, &domid);
> > > > > @@ -4762,9 +4770,41 @@ int libxl_device_events_handler(libxl_ctx *ctx,
> > > > >                                      be_path);
> > > > >      if (rc) goto out;
> > > > >  
> > > > > +    rc = libxl__xs_transaction_start(gc, &t);
> > > > > +    if (rc) goto out;
> > > > 
> > > > Why do you need to start a transaction here if you end up aborting it 
> > > > when 
> > > > finished?
> > > 
> > > Mostly to ease error checking. Because below code does three level
> > > listing, I don't want to deal with races where some entry was removed
> > > between those calls, at least not here. Like this:
> > > 
> > > xs_directory('backend/vif') -> 3, 4, 5
> > > xs_directory('backend/vif/3') -> 0, 1
> > > xs_read('backend/vif/3/0/state') -> ...
> > > xs_read('backend/vif/3/1/state') -> ...
> > > toolstack removes backend/vif/4 here
> > > xs_directory('backend/vif/4') ->  fail
> > > 
> > > Of course backend_watch_callback would fail anyway in such a case, which
> > > is ok. But having snapshot of xenstore during this multi-level listing
> > > looks like avoiding some corner cases during listing itself.
> > 
> > AFAICT your code seems to be prepared to deal with entries disappearing in 
> > the middle of the tree walk, so I would just remove the transaction.
> 
> Actually I'm considering changing error handling below to "goto out"
> instead of "continue", as race condition should be eliminated by the
> transaction, other errors (permission denied for example) maybe should
> be considered fatal. So, IMO there two options:
>  - ignore failed reads and remove transaction
>  - error on failed reads and keep transaction
> 
> Which one would be better?

IMHO, I think the first option is better, and you already have it coded.

Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel