| Message ID | 20201127144522.29991-3-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | block: update graph permissions update | expand |
Am 27.11.2020 um 15:44 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: > Add test to show that simple DFS recursion order is not correct for > permission update. Correct order is topological-sort order, which will > be introduced later. > > Consider the block driver which has two filter children: one active > with exclusive write access and one inactive with no specific > permissions. > > And, these two children has a common base child, like this: > > ┌─────┐ ┌──────┐ > │ fl2 │ ◀── │ top │ > └─────┘ └──────┘ > │ │ > │ │ w > │ ▼ > │ ┌──────┐ > │ │ fl1 │ > │ └──────┘ > │ │ > │ │ w > │ ▼ > │ ┌──────┐ > └───────▶ │ base │ > └──────┘ > > So, exclusive write is propagated. > > Assume, we want to make fl2 active instead of fl1. > So, we set some option for top driver and do permission update. > > If permission update (remember, it's DFS) goes first through > top->fl1->base branch it will succeed: it firstly drop exclusive write > permissions and than apply them for another BdrvChildren. > But if permission update goes first through top->fl2->base branch it > will fail, as when we try to update fl2->base child, old not yet > updated fl1->base child will be in conflict. > > Now test fails, so it runs only with -d flag. To run do > > ./test-bdrv-graph-mod -d -p /bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-perm-update > > from <build-directory>/tests. > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> > --- > tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c b/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c > index 3b9e6f242f..27e3361a60 100644 > --- a/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c > +++ b/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c > @@ -232,6 +232,68 @@ static void test_parallel_exclusive_write(void) > bdrv_unref(top); > } > > +static void write_to_file_perms(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c, > + BdrvChildRole role, > + BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue, > + uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared, > + uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared) > +{ > + if (bs->file && c == bs->file) { > + *nperm = BLK_PERM_WRITE; > + *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_WRITE; > + } else { > + *nperm = 0; > + *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL; > + } > +} > + > +static BlockDriver bdrv_write_to_file = { > + .format_name = "tricky-perm", > + .bdrv_child_perm = write_to_file_perms, > +}; > + > +static void test_parallel_perm_update(void) > +{ > + BlockDriverState *top = no_perm_node("top"); > + BlockDriverState *tricky = > + bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_write_to_file, "tricky", BDRV_O_RDWR, > + &error_abort); > + BlockDriverState *base = no_perm_node("base"); > + BlockDriverState *fl1 = pass_through_node("fl1"); > + BlockDriverState *fl2 = pass_through_node("fl2"); > + BdrvChild *c_fl1, *c_fl2; > + > + bdrv_attach_child(top, tricky, "file", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_DATA, > + &error_abort); > + c_fl1 = bdrv_attach_child(tricky, fl1, "first", &child_of_bds, > + BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, &error_abort); > + c_fl2 = bdrv_attach_child(tricky, fl2, "second", &child_of_bds, > + BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, &error_abort); > + bdrv_attach_child(fl1, base, "backing", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, > + &error_abort); > + bdrv_attach_child(fl2, base, "backing", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, > + &error_abort); > + bdrv_ref(base); > + > + /* Select fl1 as first child to be active */ > + tricky->file = c_fl1; > + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort); > + > + assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE); > + > + /* Now, try to switch active child and update permissions */ > + tricky->file = c_fl2; > + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort); > + > + assert(c_fl2->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE); > + > + /* Switch once more, to not care about real child order in the list */ > + tricky->file = c_fl1; > + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort); > + > + assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE); Should we also assert in each case that the we don't hole the write permission for the inactive child? Kevin
18.01.2021 17:05, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 27.11.2020 um 15:44 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben: >> Add test to show that simple DFS recursion order is not correct for >> permission update. Correct order is topological-sort order, which will >> be introduced later. >> >> Consider the block driver which has two filter children: one active >> with exclusive write access and one inactive with no specific >> permissions. >> >> And, these two children has a common base child, like this: >> >> ┌─────┐ ┌──────┐ >> │ fl2 │ ◀── │ top │ >> └─────┘ └──────┘ >> │ │ >> │ │ w >> │ ▼ >> │ ┌──────┐ >> │ │ fl1 │ >> │ └──────┘ >> │ │ >> │ │ w >> │ ▼ >> │ ┌──────┐ >> └───────▶ │ base │ >> └──────┘ >> >> So, exclusive write is propagated. >> >> Assume, we want to make fl2 active instead of fl1. >> So, we set some option for top driver and do permission update. >> >> If permission update (remember, it's DFS) goes first through >> top->fl1->base branch it will succeed: it firstly drop exclusive write >> permissions and than apply them for another BdrvChildren. >> But if permission update goes first through top->fl2->base branch it >> will fail, as when we try to update fl2->base child, old not yet >> updated fl1->base child will be in conflict. >> >> Now test fails, so it runs only with -d flag. To run do >> >> ./test-bdrv-graph-mod -d -p /bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-perm-update >> >> from <build-directory>/tests. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> >> --- >> tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c b/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c >> index 3b9e6f242f..27e3361a60 100644 >> --- a/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c >> +++ b/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c >> @@ -232,6 +232,68 @@ static void test_parallel_exclusive_write(void) >> bdrv_unref(top); >> } >> >> +static void write_to_file_perms(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c, >> + BdrvChildRole role, >> + BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue, >> + uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared, >> + uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared) >> +{ >> + if (bs->file && c == bs->file) { >> + *nperm = BLK_PERM_WRITE; >> + *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_WRITE; >> + } else { >> + *nperm = 0; >> + *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL; >> + } >> +} >> + >> +static BlockDriver bdrv_write_to_file = { >> + .format_name = "tricky-perm", >> + .bdrv_child_perm = write_to_file_perms, >> +}; >> + >> +static void test_parallel_perm_update(void) >> +{ >> + BlockDriverState *top = no_perm_node("top"); >> + BlockDriverState *tricky = >> + bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_write_to_file, "tricky", BDRV_O_RDWR, >> + &error_abort); >> + BlockDriverState *base = no_perm_node("base"); >> + BlockDriverState *fl1 = pass_through_node("fl1"); >> + BlockDriverState *fl2 = pass_through_node("fl2"); >> + BdrvChild *c_fl1, *c_fl2; >> + >> + bdrv_attach_child(top, tricky, "file", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_DATA, >> + &error_abort); >> + c_fl1 = bdrv_attach_child(tricky, fl1, "first", &child_of_bds, >> + BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, &error_abort); >> + c_fl2 = bdrv_attach_child(tricky, fl2, "second", &child_of_bds, >> + BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, &error_abort); >> + bdrv_attach_child(fl1, base, "backing", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, >> + &error_abort); >> + bdrv_attach_child(fl2, base, "backing", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, >> + &error_abort); >> + bdrv_ref(base); >> + >> + /* Select fl1 as first child to be active */ >> + tricky->file = c_fl1; >> + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort); >> + >> + assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE); >> + >> + /* Now, try to switch active child and update permissions */ >> + tricky->file = c_fl2; >> + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort); >> + >> + assert(c_fl2->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE); >> + >> + /* Switch once more, to not care about real child order in the list */ >> + tricky->file = c_fl1; >> + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort); >> + >> + assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE); > > Should we also assert in each case that the we don't hole the write > permission for the inactive child? > Won't hurt, will add
diff --git a/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c b/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c index 3b9e6f242f..27e3361a60 100644 --- a/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c +++ b/tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c @@ -232,6 +232,68 @@ static void test_parallel_exclusive_write(void) bdrv_unref(top); } +static void write_to_file_perms(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c, + BdrvChildRole role, + BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue, + uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared, + uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared) +{ + if (bs->file && c == bs->file) { + *nperm = BLK_PERM_WRITE; + *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_WRITE; + } else { + *nperm = 0; + *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL; + } +} + +static BlockDriver bdrv_write_to_file = { + .format_name = "tricky-perm", + .bdrv_child_perm = write_to_file_perms, +}; + +static void test_parallel_perm_update(void) +{ + BlockDriverState *top = no_perm_node("top"); + BlockDriverState *tricky = + bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_write_to_file, "tricky", BDRV_O_RDWR, + &error_abort); + BlockDriverState *base = no_perm_node("base"); + BlockDriverState *fl1 = pass_through_node("fl1"); + BlockDriverState *fl2 = pass_through_node("fl2"); + BdrvChild *c_fl1, *c_fl2; + + bdrv_attach_child(top, tricky, "file", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_DATA, + &error_abort); + c_fl1 = bdrv_attach_child(tricky, fl1, "first", &child_of_bds, + BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, &error_abort); + c_fl2 = bdrv_attach_child(tricky, fl2, "second", &child_of_bds, + BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, &error_abort); + bdrv_attach_child(fl1, base, "backing", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, + &error_abort); + bdrv_attach_child(fl2, base, "backing", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED, + &error_abort); + bdrv_ref(base); + + /* Select fl1 as first child to be active */ + tricky->file = c_fl1; + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort); + + assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE); + + /* Now, try to switch active child and update permissions */ + tricky->file = c_fl2; + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort); + + assert(c_fl2->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE); + + /* Switch once more, to not care about real child order in the list */ + tricky->file = c_fl1; + bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort); + + assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE); +} + int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int i; @@ -256,6 +318,8 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) if (debug) { g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-exclusive-write", test_parallel_exclusive_write); + g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-perm-update", + test_parallel_perm_update); } return g_test_run();
Add test to show that simple DFS recursion order is not correct for permission update. Correct order is topological-sort order, which will be introduced later. Consider the block driver which has two filter children: one active with exclusive write access and one inactive with no specific permissions. And, these two children has a common base child, like this: ┌─────┐ ┌──────┐ │ fl2 │ ◀── │ top │ └─────┘ └──────┘ │ │ │ │ w │ ▼ │ ┌──────┐ │ │ fl1 │ │ └──────┘ │ │ │ │ w │ ▼ │ ┌──────┐ └───────▶ │ base │ └──────┘ So, exclusive write is propagated. Assume, we want to make fl2 active instead of fl1. So, we set some option for top driver and do permission update. If permission update (remember, it's DFS) goes first through top->fl1->base branch it will succeed: it firstly drop exclusive write permissions and than apply them for another BdrvChildren. But if permission update goes first through top->fl2->base branch it will fail, as when we try to update fl2->base child, old not yet updated fl1->base child will be in conflict. Now test fails, so it runs only with -d flag. To run do ./test-bdrv-graph-mod -d -p /bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-perm-update from <build-directory>/tests. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com> --- tests/test-bdrv-graph-mod.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)