b49f4755c7
This is the big patch that removes aio_context_acquire()/aio_context_release() from the block layer and affected block layer users. There isn't a clean way to split this patch and the reviewers are likely the same group of people, so I decided to do it in one patch. Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul@xen.org> Message-ID: <20231205182011.1976568-7-stefanha@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
463 lines
16 KiB
C
463 lines
16 KiB
C
/*
|
|
* Block node graph modifications tests
|
|
*
|
|
* Copyright (c) 2019-2021 Virtuozzo International GmbH. All rights reserved.
|
|
*
|
|
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
|
|
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
|
|
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
|
|
* (at your option) any later version.
|
|
*
|
|
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
|
|
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
|
|
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
|
|
* GNU General Public License for more details.
|
|
*
|
|
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
|
|
* along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
|
|
*
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#include "qemu/osdep.h"
|
|
#include "qapi/error.h"
|
|
#include "qemu/main-loop.h"
|
|
#include "block/block_int.h"
|
|
#include "sysemu/block-backend.h"
|
|
|
|
static BlockDriver bdrv_pass_through = {
|
|
.format_name = "pass-through",
|
|
.is_filter = true,
|
|
.filtered_child_is_backing = true,
|
|
.bdrv_child_perm = bdrv_default_perms,
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
static void no_perm_default_perms(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c,
|
|
BdrvChildRole role,
|
|
BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
|
|
uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared,
|
|
uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared)
|
|
{
|
|
*nperm = 0;
|
|
*nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
static BlockDriver bdrv_no_perm = {
|
|
.format_name = "no-perm",
|
|
.supports_backing = true,
|
|
.bdrv_child_perm = no_perm_default_perms,
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
static void exclusive_write_perms(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c,
|
|
BdrvChildRole role,
|
|
BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
|
|
uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared,
|
|
uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared)
|
|
{
|
|
*nperm = BLK_PERM_WRITE;
|
|
*nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_WRITE;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
static BlockDriver bdrv_exclusive_writer = {
|
|
.format_name = "exclusive-writer",
|
|
.is_filter = true,
|
|
.filtered_child_is_backing = true,
|
|
.bdrv_child_perm = exclusive_write_perms,
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
static BlockDriverState *no_perm_node(const char *name)
|
|
{
|
|
return bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_no_perm, name, BDRV_O_RDWR, &error_abort);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
static BlockDriverState *pass_through_node(const char *name)
|
|
{
|
|
return bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_pass_through, name,
|
|
BDRV_O_RDWR, &error_abort);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
static BlockDriverState *exclusive_writer_node(const char *name)
|
|
{
|
|
return bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_exclusive_writer, name,
|
|
BDRV_O_RDWR, &error_abort);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* test_update_perm_tree
|
|
*
|
|
* When checking node for a possibility to update permissions, it's subtree
|
|
* should be correctly checked too. New permissions for each node should be
|
|
* calculated and checked in context of permissions of other nodes. If we
|
|
* check new permissions of the node only in context of old permissions of
|
|
* its neighbors, we can finish up with wrong permission graph.
|
|
*
|
|
* This test firstly create the following graph:
|
|
* +--------+
|
|
* | root |
|
|
* +--------+
|
|
* |
|
|
* | perm: write, read
|
|
* | shared: except write
|
|
* v
|
|
* +--------------------+ +----------------+
|
|
* | passthrough filter |--------->| null-co node |
|
|
* +--------------------+ +----------------+
|
|
*
|
|
*
|
|
* and then, tries to append filter under node. Expected behavior: fail.
|
|
* Otherwise we'll get the following picture, with two BdrvChild'ren, having
|
|
* write permission to one node, without actually sharing it.
|
|
*
|
|
* +--------+
|
|
* | root |
|
|
* +--------+
|
|
* |
|
|
* | perm: write, read
|
|
* | shared: except write
|
|
* v
|
|
* +--------------------+
|
|
* | passthrough filter |
|
|
* +--------------------+
|
|
* | |
|
|
* perm: write, read | | perm: write, read
|
|
* shared: except write | | shared: except write
|
|
* v v
|
|
* +----------------+
|
|
* | null co node |
|
|
* +----------------+
|
|
*/
|
|
static void test_update_perm_tree(void)
|
|
{
|
|
int ret;
|
|
|
|
BlockBackend *root = blk_new(qemu_get_aio_context(),
|
|
BLK_PERM_WRITE | BLK_PERM_CONSISTENT_READ,
|
|
BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_WRITE);
|
|
BlockDriverState *bs = no_perm_node("node");
|
|
BlockDriverState *filter = pass_through_node("filter");
|
|
|
|
blk_insert_bs(root, bs, &error_abort);
|
|
|
|
bdrv_graph_wrlock();
|
|
bdrv_attach_child(filter, bs, "child", &child_of_bds,
|
|
BDRV_CHILD_DATA, &error_abort);
|
|
bdrv_graph_wrunlock();
|
|
|
|
ret = bdrv_append(filter, bs, NULL);
|
|
g_assert_cmpint(ret, <, 0);
|
|
|
|
bdrv_unref(filter);
|
|
blk_unref(root);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* test_should_update_child
|
|
*
|
|
* Test that bdrv_replace_node, and concretely should_update_child
|
|
* do the right thing, i.e. not creating loops on the graph.
|
|
*
|
|
* The test does the following:
|
|
* 1. initial graph:
|
|
*
|
|
* +------+ +--------+
|
|
* | root | | filter |
|
|
* +------+ +--------+
|
|
* | |
|
|
* root| target|
|
|
* v v
|
|
* +------+ +--------+
|
|
* | node |<---------| target |
|
|
* +------+ backing +--------+
|
|
*
|
|
* 2. Append @filter above @node. If should_update_child works correctly,
|
|
* it understands, that backing child of @target should not be updated,
|
|
* as it will create a loop on node graph. Resulting picture should
|
|
* be the left one, not the right:
|
|
*
|
|
* +------+ +------+
|
|
* | root | | root |
|
|
* +------+ +------+
|
|
* | |
|
|
* root| root|
|
|
* v v
|
|
* +--------+ target +--------+ target
|
|
* | filter |--------------+ | filter |--------------+
|
|
* +--------+ | +--------+ |
|
|
* | | | ^ v
|
|
* backing| | backing| | +--------+
|
|
* v v | +-----------| target |
|
|
* +------+ +--------+ v backing +--------+
|
|
* | node |<---------| target | +------+
|
|
* +------+ backing +--------+ | node |
|
|
* +------+
|
|
*
|
|
* (good picture) (bad picture)
|
|
*
|
|
*/
|
|
static void test_should_update_child(void)
|
|
{
|
|
BlockBackend *root = blk_new(qemu_get_aio_context(), 0, BLK_PERM_ALL);
|
|
BlockDriverState *bs = no_perm_node("node");
|
|
BlockDriverState *filter = no_perm_node("filter");
|
|
BlockDriverState *target = no_perm_node("target");
|
|
|
|
blk_insert_bs(root, bs, &error_abort);
|
|
|
|
bdrv_set_backing_hd(target, bs, &error_abort);
|
|
|
|
bdrv_graph_wrlock();
|
|
g_assert(target->backing->bs == bs);
|
|
bdrv_attach_child(filter, target, "target", &child_of_bds,
|
|
BDRV_CHILD_DATA, &error_abort);
|
|
bdrv_graph_wrunlock();
|
|
bdrv_append(filter, bs, &error_abort);
|
|
|
|
bdrv_graph_rdlock_main_loop();
|
|
g_assert(target->backing->bs == bs);
|
|
bdrv_graph_rdunlock_main_loop();
|
|
|
|
bdrv_unref(filter);
|
|
bdrv_unref(bs);
|
|
blk_unref(root);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* test_parallel_exclusive_write
|
|
*
|
|
* Check that when we replace node, old permissions of the node being removed
|
|
* doesn't break the replacement.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void test_parallel_exclusive_write(void)
|
|
{
|
|
BlockDriverState *top = exclusive_writer_node("top");
|
|
BlockDriverState *base = no_perm_node("base");
|
|
BlockDriverState *fl1 = pass_through_node("fl1");
|
|
BlockDriverState *fl2 = pass_through_node("fl2");
|
|
|
|
bdrv_drained_begin(fl1);
|
|
bdrv_drained_begin(fl2);
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* bdrv_attach_child() eats child bs reference, so we need two @base
|
|
* references for two filters. We also need an additional @fl1 reference so
|
|
* that it still exists when we want to undrain it.
|
|
*/
|
|
bdrv_ref(base);
|
|
bdrv_ref(fl1);
|
|
|
|
bdrv_graph_wrlock();
|
|
bdrv_attach_child(top, fl1, "backing", &child_of_bds,
|
|
BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
|
|
&error_abort);
|
|
bdrv_attach_child(fl1, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
|
|
BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
|
|
&error_abort);
|
|
bdrv_attach_child(fl2, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
|
|
BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
|
|
&error_abort);
|
|
|
|
bdrv_replace_node(fl1, fl2, &error_abort);
|
|
bdrv_graph_wrunlock();
|
|
|
|
bdrv_drained_end(fl2);
|
|
bdrv_drained_end(fl1);
|
|
|
|
bdrv_unref(fl1);
|
|
bdrv_unref(fl2);
|
|
bdrv_unref(top);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* write-to-selected node may have several DATA children, one of them may be
|
|
* "selected". Exclusive write permission is taken on selected child.
|
|
*
|
|
* We don't realize write handler itself, as we need only to test how permission
|
|
* update works.
|
|
*/
|
|
typedef struct BDRVWriteToSelectedState {
|
|
BdrvChild *selected;
|
|
} BDRVWriteToSelectedState;
|
|
|
|
static void write_to_selected_perms(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c,
|
|
BdrvChildRole role,
|
|
BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
|
|
uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared,
|
|
uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared)
|
|
{
|
|
BDRVWriteToSelectedState *s = bs->opaque;
|
|
|
|
if (s->selected && c == s->selected) {
|
|
*nperm = BLK_PERM_WRITE;
|
|
*nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_WRITE;
|
|
} else {
|
|
*nperm = 0;
|
|
*nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
static BlockDriver bdrv_write_to_selected = {
|
|
.format_name = "write-to-selected",
|
|
.instance_size = sizeof(BDRVWriteToSelectedState),
|
|
.bdrv_child_perm = write_to_selected_perms,
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* The following test shows that topological-sort order is required for
|
|
* permission update, simple DFS is not enough.
|
|
*
|
|
* Consider the block driver (write-to-selected) which has two children: one is
|
|
* selected so we have exclusive write access to it and for the other one we
|
|
* don't need any specific permissions.
|
|
*
|
|
* And, these two children has a common base child, like this:
|
|
* (additional "top" on top is used in test just because the only public
|
|
* function to update permission should get a specific child to update.
|
|
* Making bdrv_refresh_perms() public just for this test isn't worth it)
|
|
*
|
|
* ┌─────┐ ┌───────────────────┐ ┌─────┐
|
|
* │ fl2 │ ◀── │ write-to-selected │ ◀── │ top │
|
|
* └─────┘ └───────────────────┘ └─────┘
|
|
* │ │
|
|
* │ │ w
|
|
* │ ▼
|
|
* │ ┌──────┐
|
|
* │ │ fl1 │
|
|
* │ └──────┘
|
|
* │ │
|
|
* │ │ w
|
|
* │ ▼
|
|
* │ ┌──────┐
|
|
* └───────▶ │ base │
|
|
* └──────┘
|
|
*
|
|
* So, exclusive write is propagated.
|
|
*
|
|
* Assume, we want to select fl2 instead of fl1.
|
|
* So, we set some option for write-to-selected driver and do permission update.
|
|
*
|
|
* With simple DFS, if permission update goes first through
|
|
* write-to-selected -> 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 write-to-selected -> 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 *ws =
|
|
bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_write_to_selected, "ws", BDRV_O_RDWR,
|
|
&error_abort);
|
|
BDRVWriteToSelectedState *s = ws->opaque;
|
|
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_graph_wrlock();
|
|
bdrv_attach_child(top, ws, "file", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_DATA,
|
|
&error_abort);
|
|
c_fl1 = bdrv_attach_child(ws, fl1, "first", &child_of_bds,
|
|
BDRV_CHILD_DATA, &error_abort);
|
|
c_fl2 = bdrv_attach_child(ws, fl2, "second", &child_of_bds,
|
|
BDRV_CHILD_DATA, &error_abort);
|
|
bdrv_attach_child(fl1, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
|
|
BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
|
|
&error_abort);
|
|
bdrv_attach_child(fl2, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
|
|
BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
|
|
&error_abort);
|
|
bdrv_graph_wrunlock();
|
|
|
|
/* Select fl1 as first child to be active */
|
|
s->selected = c_fl1;
|
|
|
|
bdrv_graph_rdlock_main_loop();
|
|
|
|
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 */
|
|
s->selected = 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 */
|
|
s->selected = 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_graph_rdunlock_main_loop();
|
|
bdrv_unref(top);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
* It's possible that filter required permissions allows to insert it to backing
|
|
* chain, like:
|
|
*
|
|
* 1. [top] -> [filter] -> [base]
|
|
*
|
|
* but doesn't allow to add it as a branch:
|
|
*
|
|
* 2. [filter] --\
|
|
* v
|
|
* [top] -> [base]
|
|
*
|
|
* So, inserting such filter should do all graph modifications and only then
|
|
* update permissions. If we try to go through intermediate state [2] and update
|
|
* permissions on it we'll fail.
|
|
*
|
|
* Let's check that bdrv_append() can append such a filter.
|
|
*/
|
|
static void test_append_greedy_filter(void)
|
|
{
|
|
BlockDriverState *top = exclusive_writer_node("top");
|
|
BlockDriverState *base = no_perm_node("base");
|
|
BlockDriverState *fl = exclusive_writer_node("fl1");
|
|
|
|
bdrv_graph_wrlock();
|
|
bdrv_attach_child(top, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
|
|
BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
|
|
&error_abort);
|
|
bdrv_graph_wrunlock();
|
|
|
|
bdrv_append(fl, base, &error_abort);
|
|
bdrv_unref(fl);
|
|
bdrv_unref(top);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
|
|
{
|
|
bdrv_init();
|
|
qemu_init_main_loop(&error_abort);
|
|
|
|
g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
|
|
|
|
g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/update-perm-tree", test_update_perm_tree);
|
|
g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/should-update-child",
|
|
test_should_update_child);
|
|
g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-perm-update",
|
|
test_parallel_perm_update);
|
|
g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-exclusive-write",
|
|
test_parallel_exclusive_write);
|
|
g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/append-greedy-filter",
|
|
test_append_greedy_filter);
|
|
|
|
return g_test_run();
|
|
}
|