Locks held by virtlockd are dropped on re-exec.
virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5.4G WRITE 0 0 0 /tmp/test.qcow2
virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid
virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid
Acquire locks in PostExecRestart code path.
Signed-off-by: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com>
---
The CLOEXEC flag is set in virLockSpaceNewPostExecRestart(), so I assume
it is fine to call virFileLock() here as well.
src/util/virlockspace.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/util/virlockspace.c b/src/util/virlockspace.c
index 41af0cdb6..420878b0a 100644
--- a/src/util/virlockspace.c
+++ b/src/util/virlockspace.c
@@ -337,6 +337,7 @@ virLockSpacePtr virLockSpaceNewPostExecRestart(virJSONValuePtr object)
virJSONValuePtr owners;
size_t j;
ssize_t m;
+ bool shared = false;
if (VIR_ALLOC(res) < 0)
goto error;
@@ -389,6 +390,21 @@ virLockSpacePtr virLockSpaceNewPostExecRestart(virJSONValuePtr object)
goto error;
}
+ shared = !!(res->flags & VIR_LOCK_SPACE_ACQUIRE_SHARED);
+ if (virFileLock(res->fd, shared, 0, 1, false) < 0) {
+ if (errno == EACCES || errno == EAGAIN) {
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_RESOURCE_BUSY,
+ _("Lockspace resource '%s' is locked"),
+ res->name);
+ } else {
+ virReportSystemError(errno,
+ _("Unable to acquire lock on '%s'"),
+ res->path);
+ }
+ virLockSpaceResourceFree(res);
+ goto error;
+ }
+
if (!(owners = virJSONValueObjectGet(child, "owners"))) {
virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
_("Missing resource owners in JSON document"));
--
2.16.2
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 04:42:36PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote: >Locks held by virtlockd are dropped on re-exec. > >virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5.4G WRITE 0 0 0 /tmp/test.qcow2 >virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid >virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid > >Acquire locks in PostExecRestart code path. > >Signed-off-by: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com> >--- > >The CLOEXEC flag is set in virLockSpaceNewPostExecRestart(), so I assume >it is fine to call virFileLock() here as well. > I'm not that familiar with the internals of virtlockd, but I can't think of what commands would the daemon run. So can't we just keep the fd's without O_CLOEXEC? If not, then we could at least remove the flag before re-exec (in PreExec) and then set it again back after (in PostExec). But more opinions might be better. Martin -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 04:42:36PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> Locks held by virtlockd are dropped on re-exec.
>
> virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5.4G WRITE 0 0 0 /tmp/test.qcow2
> virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid
> virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid
>
> Acquire locks in PostExecRestart code path.
This is really strange and should *not* be happening. POSIX locks
are supposed to be preserved across execve() if the FD has CLOEXEC
unset, and you don't fork() before the exec.
eg see this demo program:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
if (argc == 2) {
int fd = atoi(argv[1]);
struct flock fl = {
.l_type = F_WRLCK,
.l_whence = SEEK_SET,
.l_start = 0,
.l_len = 42,
};
if (fcntl(fd, F_GETLK, &fl) < 0)
abort();
int flags;
if ((flags = fcntl(fd, F_GETFD)) < 0)
abort();
flags |= FD_CLOEXEC;
if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, flags) < 0)
abort();
fprintf(stderr, "Owned %d\n", fl.l_pid);
fprintf(stderr, "Execd\n");
sleep(50);
} else {
int fd = open("lock.txt", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC, 0755);
if (fd < 0)
abort();
struct flock fl = {
.l_type = F_WRLCK,
.l_whence = SEEK_SET,
.l_start = 0,
.l_len = 42,
};
if (fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) < 0)
abort();
int flags;
if ((flags = fcntl(fd, F_GETFD)) < 0)
abort();
flags &= ~FD_CLOEXEC;
if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, flags) < 0)
abort();
char fdstr[100];
snprintf(fdstr, sizeof(fdstr), "%d", fd);
char *newargv[] = { argv[0], fdstr, NULL };
fprintf(stderr, "Waiting\n");
sleep(10);
execve(argv[0], newargv, NULL);
}
}
If you run this, you'll see the lock still exists after execveI().
So I wonder what we've screwed up to cause the locks to get
released - reaquiring them definitely isn't desirable as we
should not loose them in the first place !
>
> Signed-off-by: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com>
> ---
>
> The CLOEXEC flag is set in virLockSpaceNewPostExecRestart(), so I assume
> it is fine to call virFileLock() here as well.
>
> src/util/virlockspace.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/util/virlockspace.c b/src/util/virlockspace.c
> index 41af0cdb6..420878b0a 100644
> --- a/src/util/virlockspace.c
> +++ b/src/util/virlockspace.c
> @@ -337,6 +337,7 @@ virLockSpacePtr virLockSpaceNewPostExecRestart(virJSONValuePtr object)
> virJSONValuePtr owners;
> size_t j;
> ssize_t m;
> + bool shared = false;
>
> if (VIR_ALLOC(res) < 0)
> goto error;
> @@ -389,6 +390,21 @@ virLockSpacePtr virLockSpaceNewPostExecRestart(virJSONValuePtr object)
> goto error;
> }
>
> + shared = !!(res->flags & VIR_LOCK_SPACE_ACQUIRE_SHARED);
> + if (virFileLock(res->fd, shared, 0, 1, false) < 0) {
> + if (errno == EACCES || errno == EAGAIN) {
> + virReportError(VIR_ERR_RESOURCE_BUSY,
> + _("Lockspace resource '%s' is locked"),
> + res->name);
> + } else {
> + virReportSystemError(errno,
> + _("Unable to acquire lock on '%s'"),
> + res->path);
> + }
> + virLockSpaceResourceFree(res);
> + goto error;
> + }
> +
> if (!(owners = virJSONValueObjectGet(child, "owners"))) {
> virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
> _("Missing resource owners in JSON document"));
> --
> 2.16.2
>
> --
> libvir-list mailing list
> libvir-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 04:52:23PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 04:42:36PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote: > > Locks held by virtlockd are dropped on re-exec. > > > > virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5.4G WRITE 0 0 0 /tmp/test.qcow2 > > virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid > > virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid > > > > Acquire locks in PostExecRestart code path. > > This is really strange and should *not* be happening. POSIX locks > are supposed to be preserved across execve() if the FD has CLOEXEC > unset, and you don't fork() before the exec. [snip] > So I wonder what we've screwed up to cause the locks to get > released - reaquiring them definitely isn't desirable as we > should not loose them in the first place ! This is really very strange. The problem seems to be the existance of threads at time of execve(). If you spawn a thread and the thread exits, and you execve the locks are preserved. If you spawn a thread and the thread is still running, and you execve the locks are lost. This behaviour makes no sense at all to time. Why should it matter if the thread exits itself, or is force exited during execve(). I wonder if it is even possibly a kernel bug. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On 03/02/2018 11:12 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 04:52:23PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 04:42:36PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>>> Locks held by virtlockd are dropped on re-exec.
>>>
>>> virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5.4G WRITE 0 0 0 /tmp/test.qcow2
>>> virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid
>>> virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid
>>>
>>> Acquire locks in PostExecRestart code path.
>>
>> This is really strange and should *not* be happening. POSIX locks
>> are supposed to be preserved across execve() if the FD has CLOEXEC
>> unset, and you don't fork() before the exec.
>
> [snip]
>
>> So I wonder what we've screwed up to cause the locks to get
>> released - reaquiring them definitely isn't desirable as we
>> should not loose them in the first place !
>
> This is really very strange. The problem seems to be the existance of
> threads at time of execve().
>
> If you spawn a thread and the thread exits, and you execve the locks
> are preserved.
>
> If you spawn a thread and the thread is still running, and you execve
> the locks are lost.
Indeed you are correct. I'm seeing the same behavior with the below
modifications to your demo. The lock is preserved after execve when BREAK_FLOCK
is 0, but removed when BREAK_FLOCK is 1.
--- lock.c 2018-03-02 15:10:59.200154182 -0700
+++ lock-thr.c 2018-03-02 15:14:30.501441105 -0700
@@ -4,6 +4,15 @@
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
+#define BREAK_FLOCK 1
+
+static void *thr_func(void *arg)
+{
+#if BREAK_FLOCK == 1
+ while (1)
+#endif
+ sleep(5);
+}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
@@ -33,6 +42,13 @@
sleep(50);
} else {
+ pthread_t thr;
+
+ if (pthread_create(&thr, NULL, thr_func, NULL) != 0) {
+ fprintf(stderr, "pthread_create failed\n");
+ abort();
+ }
+
int fd = open("lock.txt", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC, 0755);
if (fd < 0)
abort();
> This behaviour makes no sense at all to time. Why should it matter if
> the thread exits itself, or is force exited during execve(). I wonder
> if it is even possibly a kernel bug.
I'll attach the reproducer to an internal bug (sorry!), but will report back
here with any findings.
Regards,
Jim
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 03:24:53PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote: > On 03/02/2018 11:12 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 04:52:23PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 04:42:36PM -0700, Jim Fehlig wrote: > > > > Locks held by virtlockd are dropped on re-exec. > > > > > > > > virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5.4G WRITE 0 0 0 /tmp/test.qcow2 > > > > virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid > > > > virtlockd 94306 POSIX 5B WRITE 0 0 0 /run/virtlockd.pid > > > > > > > > Acquire locks in PostExecRestart code path. > > > > > > This is really strange and should *not* be happening. POSIX locks > > > are supposed to be preserved across execve() if the FD has CLOEXEC > > > unset, and you don't fork() before the exec. > > > > [snip] > > > > > So I wonder what we've screwed up to cause the locks to get > > > released - reaquiring them definitely isn't desirable as we > > > should not loose them in the first place ! > > > > This is really very strange. The problem seems to be the existance of > > threads at time of execve(). > > > > If you spawn a thread and the thread exits, and you execve the locks > > are preserved. > > > > If you spawn a thread and the thread is still running, and you execve > > the locks are lost. > > Indeed you are correct. I'm seeing the same behavior with the below > modifications to your demo. The lock is preserved after execve when > BREAK_FLOCK is 0, but removed when BREAK_FLOCK is 1. I tried RHEL7 vintage kernel and saw the same behaviour, so this seems to be a fairly long standing issue. In theory we can make virNetServer single-threaded by passing max_workers==0 when creating it, but I just tried that and hit deadlock, so it seems that code has bit-rotted. If I we can fix that, then I think leaving it single threaded is the easiest way to deal with this. Failing that, we would have to arrange to cleanly terminate all threads before re-exec'ing. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.