Hi Peter
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:02 AM, Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:46:13AM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:33:27AM +0200, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>> >> Hi
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 05:18:53PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >
>> >> >> > +/*
>> >> >> > + * Dispatch one single QMP request. The function will free the
>> >> >> > req_obj
>> >> >> > + * and objects inside it before return.
>> >> >> > + */
>> >> >> > +static void monitor_qmp_dispatch_one(QMPRequest *req_obj)
>> >> >> > {
>> >> >> > - QObject *req, *rsp = NULL, *id = NULL;
>> >> >> > + Monitor *mon, *old_mon;
>> >> >> > + QObject *req, *rsp = NULL, *id;
>> >> >> > QDict *qdict = NULL;
>> >> >> > - MonitorQMP *mon_qmp = container_of(parser, MonitorQMP, parser);
>> >> >> > - Monitor *old_mon, *mon = container_of(mon_qmp, Monitor, qmp);
>> >> >> > -
>> >> >> > - Error *err = NULL;
>> >> >> > + bool need_resume;
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > - req = json_parser_parse_err(tokens, NULL, &err);
>> >> >> > - if (!req && !err) {
>> >> >> > - /* json_parser_parse_err() sucks: can fail without setting
>> >> >> > @err */
>> >> >> > - error_setg(&err, QERR_JSON_PARSING);
>> >> >> > - }
>> >> >> > - if (err) {
>> >> >> > - goto err_out;
>> >> >> > - }
>> >> >> > + req = req_obj->req;
>> >> >> > + mon = req_obj->mon;
>> >> >> > + id = req_obj->id;
>> >> >> > + need_resume = req_obj->need_resume;
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > - qdict = qobject_to_qdict(req);
>> >> >> > - if (qdict) {
>> >> >> > - id = qdict_get(qdict, "id");
>> >> >> > - qobject_incref(id);
>> >> >> > - qdict_del(qdict, "id");
>> >> >> > - } /* else will fail qmp_dispatch() */
>> >> >> > + g_free(req_obj);
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > if (trace_event_get_state_backends(TRACE_HANDLE_QMP_COMMAND)) {
>> >> >> > QString *req_json = qobject_to_json(req);
>> >> >> > @@ -3900,7 +3932,7 @@ static void
>> >> >> > handle_qmp_command(JSONMessageParser *parser, GQueue *tokens)
>> >> >> > old_mon = cur_mon;
>> >> >> > cur_mon = mon;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There is another issue with this series, since cur_mon is global (and
>> >> >> not protected), an oob command may change the cur_mon while another
>> >> >> command is running in the main thread with unexpected consequences. I
>> >> >> don't have a clear idea what is the best way to solve it. Making the
>> >> >> variable per-thread, or going all the way to get rid of cur_mon (my
>> >> >> preference, but much harder)
>> >> >
>> >> > IMHO it is fine too.
>> >> >
>> >> > Note that this cur_mon operation is in monitor_qmp_dispatch_one() now,
>> >> > which is still running in main thread. So AFAICT all the cur_mon
>> >> > references are in main thread, and monitor IOThread does not modify
>> >> > that variable at all. Then we should probably be safe.
>> >>
>> >> But monitor_qmp_dispatch_one() is called from iothread if the command
>> >> is oob, so cur_mon may be updated while another command is running in
>> >> main thread, or am I wrong?
>> >
>> > You are right. I missed that, sorry...
>> >
>> > Would this be a simple workaround (but hopefully efficient) solution?
>> >
>> > diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
>> > index 77f4c41cfa..99641c0c6d 100644
>> > --- a/monitor.c
>> > +++ b/monitor.c
>> > @@ -4023,7 +4023,7 @@ typedef struct QMPRequest QMPRequest;
>> > * Dispatch one single QMP request. The function will free the req_obj
>> > * and objects inside it before return.
>> > */
>> > -static void monitor_qmp_dispatch_one(QMPRequest *req_obj)
>> > +static void monitor_qmp_dispatch_one(QMPRequest *req_obj, bool
>> > hack_curmon)
>> > {
>> > Monitor *mon, *old_mon;
>> > QObject *req, *rsp = NULL, *id;
>> > @@ -4043,12 +4043,16 @@ static void monitor_qmp_dispatch_one(QMPRequest
>> > *req_obj)
>> > QDECREF(req_json);
>> > }
>> >
>> > - old_mon = cur_mon;
>> > - cur_mon = mon;
>> > + if (hack_curmon) {
>> > + old_mon = cur_mon;
>> > + cur_mon = mon;
>> > + }
>> >
>> > rsp = qmp_dispatch(mon->qmp.commands, req);
>> >
>> > - cur_mon = old_mon;
>> > + if (hack_curmon) {
>> > + cur_mon = old_mon;
>> > + }
>> >
>> > if (mon->qmp.commands == &qmp_cap_negotiation_commands) {
>> > qdict = qdict_get_qdict(qobject_to(QDict, rsp), "error");
>> > @@ -4116,7 +4120,7 @@ static void monitor_qmp_bh_dispatcher(void *data)
>> >
>> > if (req_obj) {
>> > trace_monitor_qmp_cmd_in_band(qobject_get_try_str(req_obj->id) ?:
>> > "");
>> > - monitor_qmp_dispatch_one(req_obj);
>> > + monitor_qmp_dispatch_one(req_obj, true);
>> > /* Reschedule instead of looping so the main loop stays
>> > responsive */
>> > qemu_bh_schedule(mon_global.qmp_dispatcher_bh);
>> > }
>> > @@ -4175,7 +4179,7 @@ static void handle_qmp_command(JSONMessageParser
>> > *parser, GQueue *tokens)
>> > /* Out-Of-Band (OOB) requests are executed directly in parser. */
>> > trace_monitor_qmp_cmd_out_of_band(qobject_get_try_str(req_obj->id)
>> > ?: "");
>> > - monitor_qmp_dispatch_one(req_obj);
>> > + monitor_qmp_dispatch_one(req_obj, false);
>> > return;
>> > }
>> >
>> > Then we forbit touching that evil cur_mon in OOB-capable command
>> > handlers. Thanks,
>>
>> That's not easy to enforce though, afaict it is being used for:
>> - error reporting decision
>
> IMO this should not be a problem, since any QMP handler (including
> OOB-capable ones) will be with an Error** there, so logically speaking
> people should never call things like error_report() in that.
>
>> - file & socket lookup (fd: & /dev/fdset etc)
>
> I suppose only very rare commands will use it? It'll be a big problem
> to solve when we want to completely remove cur_mon though.
>
>> - the current state of the monitor / list of commands, cpu_path,
>> capabilities..
>
> This is very rare to be used too? Most commands should not use them AFAIU.
>
>>
>> Wouldn't it be simpler to make it per-thread? I think it could also
>> use helpers to push/pop the current monitor.
>
> Anyway I think yes this is still a good option (though the cur_mon
> logic will be a bit more complicated).
>
> Do you plan to post some patch about this, or do you want me to do
> this? I suppose we'll change the qemu_thread_create() a bit to pass
> the cur_mon inside, and I suppose this might be better material after
> 2.12 release if OOB is off now.
Have you looked at making cur_mon per-thread?
thanks
--
Marc-André Lureau
