Am 30.01.2018 um 13:38 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:41:07PM +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> > Am 24.01.2018 um 12:31 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben:
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:01:49AM -0600, Mark Kanda wrote:
> > > > Add a BlockDriverState NULL check to virtio_blk_handle_request()
> > > > to prevent a segfault if the drive is forcibly removed using HMP
> > > > 'drive_del' (without performing a hotplug 'device_del' first).
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Kanda <mark.ka...@oracle.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Karl Heubaum <karl.heub...@oracle.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Ameya More <ameya.m...@oracle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > hw/block/virtio-blk.c | 7 +++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/hw/block/virtio-blk.c b/hw/block/virtio-blk.c
> > > > index b1532e4..76ddbbf 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/block/virtio-blk.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/block/virtio-blk.c
> > > > @@ -507,6 +507,13 @@ static int
> > > > virtio_blk_handle_request(VirtIOBlockReq *req, MultiReqBuffer *mrb)
> > > > return -1;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + /* If the drive was forcibly removed (e.g. HMP 'drive_del'), the
> > > > block
> > > > + * driver state may be NULL and there is nothing left to do. */
> > > > + if (!blk_bs(req->dev->blk)) {
> > >
> > > Adding Markus Armbruster to check my understanding of drive_del:
> > >
> > > 1. If id is a node name (e.g. created via blockdev-add) then attempting
> > > to remove the root node produces the "Node %s is in use" error. In
> > > that case this patch isn't needed.
> > >
> > > 2. If id is a BlockBackend (e.g. created via -drive) then removing the
> > > root node is allowed. The BlockBackend stays in place but blk->root
> > > becomes NULL, hence this patch is needed.
> > >
> > > Markus: What are the valid use cases for #2? If blk->bs becomes NULL I
> > > would think a lot more code beyond virtio-blk can segfault.
> >
> > blk->root = NULL is completely normal, it is what happens with removable
> > media when the drive is empty.
> >
> > The problem, which was first reported during the 2.10 RC phase and was
> > worked around in IDE code then, is that Paolo's commit 99723548561 added
> > unconditional bdrv_inc/dec_in_flight() calls. I am pretty sure that any
> > segfaults that Mark is seeing have the same cause.
> >
> > We do need an in-flight counter even for those requests so that
> > blk_drain() works correctly, so just making the calls condition wouldn't
> > be right. However, this needs to become a separate counter in
> > BlockBackend, and the drain functions must be changed to make use of it.
> >
> > I did post rough patches back then, but they weren't quite ready, and
> > since then they have fallen through the cracks.
>
> Will you send a new version of that patch series?I would like to continue my work on the drain functions (which this would be a part of) sooner or later, but the work to enable libvirt to use blockdev-add is at a higher priority at the moment. So if you can wait, I'll get to it eventually. If not, feel free to pick up the patches. Kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
