Re: [PATCH 2/3] qcow2: Assert that qcow2_cache_get() callers hold s->lock

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

24.10.2019 13:57, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 24.10.2019 um 12:01 hat Denis Lunev geschrieben:
>> On 10/23/19 6:26 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>>> qcow2_cache_do_get() requires that s->lock is locked because it can
>>> yield between picking a cache entry and actually taking ownership of it
>>> by setting offset and increasing the reference count.
>>>
>>> Add an assertion to make sure the caller really holds the lock. The
>>> function can be called outside of coroutine context, where bdrv_pread
>>> and flushes become synchronous operations. The lock cannot and need not
>>> be taken in this case.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <address@hidden>
>>> ---
>>>   block/qcow2-cache.c | 5 +++++
>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/qcow2-cache.c b/block/qcow2-cache.c
>>> index d29b038a67..75b13dad99 100644
>>> --- a/block/qcow2-cache.c
>>> +++ b/block/qcow2-cache.c
>>> @@ -327,6 +327,9 @@ static int qcow2_cache_do_get(BlockDriverState *bs, 
>>> Qcow2Cache *c,
>>>       int min_lru_index = -1;
>>>   
>>>       assert(offset != 0);
>>> +    if (qemu_in_coroutine()) {
>>> +        qemu_co_mutex_assert_locked(&s->lock);
>>> +    }
>>
>> that is looking not good to me. If this is really requires lock, we should
>> check for the lock always. In the other hand we could face missed
>> lock out of coroutine.
> 
> As the commit message explains, outside of coroutine context, we can't
> yield and bdrv_pread and bdrv_flush become synchronous operations
> instead, so there is nothing else that we need to protect against.
> 

Recently we discussed similar problems about block-dirty-bitmap-* qmp commands,
which wanted to update qcow2 metadata about bitmaps from non-coroutine context.
"qcow2 lock"
<address@hidden>
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-09/msg01419.html

And, as I understand, the correct way is to convert to coroutine and lock mutex
appropriately. Or we want to lock aio context and to be in drained section to
avoid parallel requests accessing critical section. Should we assert such
conditions in case of !qemu_in_coroutine() ?

--
Final commit to fix bug about bitmaps:

commit d2c3080e41fd2c9bc36c996cc9d33804462ba803
Author: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <address@hidden>
Date:   Fri Sep 20 11:25:43 2019 +0300

     block/qcow2: proper locking on bitmap add/remove paths




-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir