On (Fri) 25 Feb 2011 [14:25:20], Michael Roth wrote:
> On 02/24/2011 06:48 AM, Amit Shah wrote:
> >On (Wed) 23 Feb 2011 [08:31:52], Michael Roth wrote:
> >>On 02/22/2011 10:59 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
> >>>On (Tue) 22 Feb 2011 [16:40:55], Michael Roth wrote:
> >>>>If something in the guest is attempting to read/write from the
> >>>>virtio-serial device, and nothing is connected to virtio-serial's
> >>>>host character device (say, a socket)
> >>>>
> >>>>1. writes will block until something connect()s, at which point the
> >>>>write will succeed
> >>>>
> >>>>2. reads will always return 0 until something connect()s, at which
> >>>>point the reads will block until there's data
> >>>>
> >>>>This makes it difficult (impossible?) to implement the notion of
> >>>>connect/disconnect or open/close over virtio-serial without layering
> >>>>another protocol on top using hackish things like length-encoded
> >>>>payloads or sentinel values to determine the end of one
> >>>>RPC/request/response/session and the start of the next.
> >>>>
> >>>>For instance, if the host side disconnects, then reconnects before
> >>>>we read(), we may never get the read()=0, and our FD remains valid.
> >>>>Whereas with a tcp/unix socket our FD is no longer valid, and the
> >>>>read()=0 is an event we can check for at any point after the other
> >>>>end does a close/disconnect.
> >>>
> >>>There's SIGIO support, so host connect-disconnect notifications can be
> >>>caught via the signal.
> >>
> >>I recall looking into this at some point....but don't we get a SIGIO
> >>for read/write-ability in general?
> >
> >I don't get you -- the virtio_console driver emits the SIGIO signal
> >only when the host side connects or disconnects. See
> >
> >http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Virtio-serial_API
> >
> >So whenever you receive a SIGIO, poll() in the signal handler for all
> >fds of interest and whichever has POLLIN set is writable. Whichever
> >has POLLHUP set is not. If you maintain previous state of the fd
> >(before signal), you can figure out if something happened on the host
> >side.
> >
>
> I tried this on RHEL6+rhn updates but the O_ASYNC flag doesn't seem
> to be supported. Has this been backported?
Yes, it has been.
> Either way, it seems we can still lose the disconnect event/poll
> state change if the host reconnects before the signal is delivered.
> So SIGIO in an application would need to be reserved for absolutely
> 2 things: a host connect or disconnect (distinguishing between the 2
> may not be so important, we could treat either as the previous
> session having been closed). Which limits the application to only
> having 1 O_ASYNC FD open at a time.
>
> But even if we do that, it seems like there might still be a small
> window where the application could read/write data intended for the
> previous connection before the signal handler is invoked. Not too
> sure on that point though. Assuming this isn't the case...it could
> work. But what about windows guests?
>
> >>So you still need some way
> >>differentiate, say, readability from a disconnect/EOF, and the
> >>read()=0 that could determine this is still racing with host-side
> >>reconnects.
> >
> >>>Also, nonblocking reads/writes will return -EPIPE if the host-side
> >>>connection is not up.
> >>
> >>But we still essentially need to poll() for a host-side disconnected
> >>state, which is still racy since they may reconnect before we've
> >>done a read/write that would've generated the -EPIPE. It seems like
> >>what we really need is for the FD to be invalid from that point
> >>forward.
> >
> >This would go against (or abuse) a chardev interface. It would
> >effectively treat a host-side port close as a hot-unplug event.
> >
>
> Well, not a complete hot-unplug. The port would still be there, we'd
> just need to re-open it after a read()=0
>
> Personally I'm not necessarily advocating we change the default
> behavior, but couldn't we support this as a separate mode?
>
> -device virtserialport,inv_fd_on_host_close=1
>
> or something along that line?
Yes, that would be reasonable. Maybe even a monitor command to switch
the type?
> >>Also, I focused more on the guest-side connect/disconnect detection,
> >>but as Anthony mentioned I think the host side shares similar
> >>limitations as well. AFAIK once we connect to the chardev that FD
> >>remains valid until the connected process closes it, and so races
> >>with the guest side on detecting connect/disconnect events in a
> >>similar manner. For the host side it looks like virtio-console has
> >>guest_close/guest_open callbacks already that we could potentially
> >>use...seems like it's just a matter of tying them to the chardev...
> >>basically having virtio-serial's guest_close() result in a close()
> >>on the corresponding chardev connection's FD.
> >
> >Yes, this could be used.
> >
> >However, the problem with that will be that the chardev can't be
> >opened again (AFAIR) and a new chardev will have to be used.
> >
>
> Hmm...yeah I was thinking more specifically about the socket
> chardev, where we can leave the listen_fd alone but close anything
> we've accept()'d prior to a guest-side disconnect. But isn't that
> enough?
That would restrict this to sockets started in server mode.
> Just add this option for chardevs where this actually makes
> sense? For instance:
>
> -chardev socket,inv_fd_on_guest_close=1
>
> Although, this wouldn't make sense if we're using the chardev for
> anything other than virtio-serial...so that flag makes more sense as
> a virtio-serial flag....but that virtio-serial flag only makes sense
> for particular chardevs...
>
> I'm not sure what a good way to do this would be honestly...either
> would work it seems...but neither seems very intuitive.
Maybe a new char interface: qemu_chr_close_connected(vcon->chr).
Don't know though. Will have to think about it.
> >So if this is done on both the sides, the race will be eliminated but
> >the expectation that a chardev port is just a serial port will be
> >broken and we'll try to bake in some connection layer on top of it.
> >That wasn't the original idea. We could extend this, but a better way
> >to achieve this could be a library on either side to abstract these
> >details off.
>
> As far as implementing a library...I tried layering something on top
> with previous applications to provide connect/disconnect detection
> over virtio-serial. Basically by proxing data to/from forwarding
> sockets on either side of the virtio-serial channel, and packetizing
> the virtio-serial stream into fixed-sized or length-encoded data
> packets and control packets that induced the kind of
> invalidate-fd-on-remote-close semantics we're discussing.
>
> It seems to work ok in practice, but we run into trouble when the
> daemons managing the stream go down...mainly due to similar problems
> as those we're trying to address with the aforementioned changes.
> (for instance...forwarding daemon in guest sends partial packet,
> goes down, starts back up, sends control packet...but packet stream
> is out of sync now. only way around i've found around this so far is
> reserving bytes in the transport as sentinel values we can use to
> re-sync the stream..but then we have to do stuff like base64-encode
> binary data, which can be expensive both in terms of channel
> bandwidth as well as cpu)
>
> If that's the kind of approach we'd need to take, I think optional
> flags like the ones mentioned above, or some other change to the
> transport, are still required. Unless there's a better approach to
> handling this outside of the actual transport that I'm missing?
Let's go with the flags you suggested above.
Amit
