This is the big patch that removes aio_context_acquire()/aio_context_release() from the block layer and affected block layer users. There isn't a clean way to split this patch and the reviewers are likely the same group of people, so I decided to do it in one patch. Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul@xen.org> Message-ID: <20231205182011.1976568-7-stefanha@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
		
			
				
	
	
		
			463 lines
		
	
	
		
			16 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			C
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			463 lines
		
	
	
		
			16 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			C
		
	
	
	
	
	
| /*
 | |
|  * Block node graph modifications tests
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * Copyright (c) 2019-2021 Virtuozzo International GmbH. All rights reserved.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 | |
|  * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 | |
|  * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 | |
|  * (at your option) any later version.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 | |
|  * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 | |
|  * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
 | |
|  * GNU General Public License for more details.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 | |
|  * along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  */
 | |
| 
 | |
| #include "qemu/osdep.h"
 | |
| #include "qapi/error.h"
 | |
| #include "qemu/main-loop.h"
 | |
| #include "block/block_int.h"
 | |
| #include "sysemu/block-backend.h"
 | |
| 
 | |
| static BlockDriver bdrv_pass_through = {
 | |
|     .format_name = "pass-through",
 | |
|     .is_filter = true,
 | |
|     .filtered_child_is_backing = true,
 | |
|     .bdrv_child_perm = bdrv_default_perms,
 | |
| };
 | |
| 
 | |
| static void no_perm_default_perms(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c,
 | |
|                                          BdrvChildRole role,
 | |
|                                          BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
 | |
|                                          uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared,
 | |
|                                          uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared)
 | |
| {
 | |
|     *nperm = 0;
 | |
|     *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL;
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| static BlockDriver bdrv_no_perm = {
 | |
|     .format_name = "no-perm",
 | |
|     .supports_backing = true,
 | |
|     .bdrv_child_perm = no_perm_default_perms,
 | |
| };
 | |
| 
 | |
| static void exclusive_write_perms(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c,
 | |
|                                   BdrvChildRole role,
 | |
|                                   BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
 | |
|                                   uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared,
 | |
|                                   uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared)
 | |
| {
 | |
|     *nperm = BLK_PERM_WRITE;
 | |
|     *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_WRITE;
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| static BlockDriver bdrv_exclusive_writer = {
 | |
|     .format_name = "exclusive-writer",
 | |
|     .is_filter = true,
 | |
|     .filtered_child_is_backing = true,
 | |
|     .bdrv_child_perm = exclusive_write_perms,
 | |
| };
 | |
| 
 | |
| static BlockDriverState *no_perm_node(const char *name)
 | |
| {
 | |
|     return bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_no_perm, name, BDRV_O_RDWR, &error_abort);
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| static BlockDriverState *pass_through_node(const char *name)
 | |
| {
 | |
|     return bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_pass_through, name,
 | |
|                                 BDRV_O_RDWR, &error_abort);
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| static BlockDriverState *exclusive_writer_node(const char *name)
 | |
| {
 | |
|     return bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_exclusive_writer, name,
 | |
|                                 BDRV_O_RDWR, &error_abort);
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| /*
 | |
|  * test_update_perm_tree
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * When checking node for a possibility to update permissions, it's subtree
 | |
|  * should be correctly checked too. New permissions for each node should be
 | |
|  * calculated and checked in context of permissions of other nodes. If we
 | |
|  * check new permissions of the node only in context of old permissions of
 | |
|  * its neighbors, we can finish up with wrong permission graph.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * This test firstly create the following graph:
 | |
|  *                                +--------+
 | |
|  *                                |  root  |
 | |
|  *                                +--------+
 | |
|  *                                    |
 | |
|  *                                    | perm: write, read
 | |
|  *                                    | shared: except write
 | |
|  *                                    v
 | |
|  *  +--------------------+          +----------------+
 | |
|  *  | passthrough filter |--------->|  null-co node  |
 | |
|  *  +--------------------+          +----------------+
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * and then, tries to append filter under node. Expected behavior: fail.
 | |
|  * Otherwise we'll get the following picture, with two BdrvChild'ren, having
 | |
|  * write permission to one node, without actually sharing it.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *                     +--------+
 | |
|  *                     |  root  |
 | |
|  *                     +--------+
 | |
|  *                         |
 | |
|  *                         | perm: write, read
 | |
|  *                         | shared: except write
 | |
|  *                         v
 | |
|  *                +--------------------+
 | |
|  *                | passthrough filter |
 | |
|  *                +--------------------+
 | |
|  *                       |   |
 | |
|  *     perm: write, read |   | perm: write, read
 | |
|  *  shared: except write |   | shared: except write
 | |
|  *                       v   v
 | |
|  *                +----------------+
 | |
|  *                |  null co node  |
 | |
|  *                +----------------+
 | |
|  */
 | |
| static void test_update_perm_tree(void)
 | |
| {
 | |
|     int ret;
 | |
| 
 | |
|     BlockBackend *root = blk_new(qemu_get_aio_context(),
 | |
|                                  BLK_PERM_WRITE | BLK_PERM_CONSISTENT_READ,
 | |
|                                  BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_WRITE);
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *bs = no_perm_node("node");
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *filter = pass_through_node("filter");
 | |
| 
 | |
|     blk_insert_bs(root, bs, &error_abort);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_wrlock();
 | |
|     bdrv_attach_child(filter, bs, "child", &child_of_bds,
 | |
|                       BDRV_CHILD_DATA, &error_abort);
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_wrunlock();
 | |
| 
 | |
|     ret = bdrv_append(filter, bs, NULL);
 | |
|     g_assert_cmpint(ret, <, 0);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_unref(filter);
 | |
|     blk_unref(root);
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| /*
 | |
|  * test_should_update_child
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * Test that bdrv_replace_node, and concretely should_update_child
 | |
|  * do the right thing, i.e. not creating loops on the graph.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * The test does the following:
 | |
|  * 1. initial graph:
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *   +------+          +--------+
 | |
|  *   | root |          | filter |
 | |
|  *   +------+          +--------+
 | |
|  *      |                  |
 | |
|  *  root|            target|
 | |
|  *      v                  v
 | |
|  *   +------+          +--------+
 | |
|  *   | node |<---------| target |
 | |
|  *   +------+  backing +--------+
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * 2. Append @filter above @node. If should_update_child works correctly,
 | |
|  * it understands, that backing child of @target should not be updated,
 | |
|  * as it will create a loop on node graph. Resulting picture should
 | |
|  * be the left one, not the right:
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *     +------+                            +------+
 | |
|  *     | root |                            | root |
 | |
|  *     +------+                            +------+
 | |
|  *        |                                   |
 | |
|  *    root|                               root|
 | |
|  *        v                                   v
 | |
|  *    +--------+   target                 +--------+   target
 | |
|  *    | filter |--------------+           | filter |--------------+
 | |
|  *    +--------+              |           +--------+              |
 | |
|  *        |                   |               |  ^                v
 | |
|  * backing|                   |        backing|  |           +--------+
 | |
|  *        v                   v               |  +-----------| target |
 | |
|  *     +------+          +--------+           v      backing +--------+
 | |
|  *     | node |<---------| target |        +------+
 | |
|  *     +------+  backing +--------+        | node |
 | |
|  *                                         +------+
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *    (good picture)                       (bad picture)
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  */
 | |
| static void test_should_update_child(void)
 | |
| {
 | |
|     BlockBackend *root = blk_new(qemu_get_aio_context(), 0, BLK_PERM_ALL);
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *bs = no_perm_node("node");
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *filter = no_perm_node("filter");
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *target = no_perm_node("target");
 | |
| 
 | |
|     blk_insert_bs(root, bs, &error_abort);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_set_backing_hd(target, bs, &error_abort);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_wrlock();
 | |
|     g_assert(target->backing->bs == bs);
 | |
|     bdrv_attach_child(filter, target, "target", &child_of_bds,
 | |
|                       BDRV_CHILD_DATA, &error_abort);
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_wrunlock();
 | |
|     bdrv_append(filter, bs, &error_abort);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_rdlock_main_loop();
 | |
|     g_assert(target->backing->bs == bs);
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_rdunlock_main_loop();
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_unref(filter);
 | |
|     bdrv_unref(bs);
 | |
|     blk_unref(root);
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| /*
 | |
|  * test_parallel_exclusive_write
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * Check that when we replace node, old permissions of the node being removed
 | |
|  * doesn't break the replacement.
 | |
|  */
 | |
| static void test_parallel_exclusive_write(void)
 | |
| {
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *top = exclusive_writer_node("top");
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *base = no_perm_node("base");
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *fl1 = pass_through_node("fl1");
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *fl2 = pass_through_node("fl2");
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_drained_begin(fl1);
 | |
|     bdrv_drained_begin(fl2);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     /*
 | |
|      * bdrv_attach_child() eats child bs reference, so we need two @base
 | |
|      * references for two filters. We also need an additional @fl1 reference so
 | |
|      * that it still exists when we want to undrain it.
 | |
|      */
 | |
|     bdrv_ref(base);
 | |
|     bdrv_ref(fl1);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_wrlock();
 | |
|     bdrv_attach_child(top, fl1, "backing", &child_of_bds,
 | |
|                       BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
 | |
|                       &error_abort);
 | |
|     bdrv_attach_child(fl1, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
 | |
|                       BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
 | |
|                       &error_abort);
 | |
|     bdrv_attach_child(fl2, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
 | |
|                       BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
 | |
|                       &error_abort);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_replace_node(fl1, fl2, &error_abort);
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_wrunlock();
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_drained_end(fl2);
 | |
|     bdrv_drained_end(fl1);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_unref(fl1);
 | |
|     bdrv_unref(fl2);
 | |
|     bdrv_unref(top);
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| /*
 | |
|  * write-to-selected node may have several DATA children, one of them may be
 | |
|  * "selected". Exclusive write permission is taken on selected child.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * We don't realize write handler itself, as we need only to test how permission
 | |
|  * update works.
 | |
|  */
 | |
| typedef struct BDRVWriteToSelectedState {
 | |
|     BdrvChild *selected;
 | |
| } BDRVWriteToSelectedState;
 | |
| 
 | |
| static void write_to_selected_perms(BlockDriverState *bs, BdrvChild *c,
 | |
|                                     BdrvChildRole role,
 | |
|                                     BlockReopenQueue *reopen_queue,
 | |
|                                     uint64_t perm, uint64_t shared,
 | |
|                                     uint64_t *nperm, uint64_t *nshared)
 | |
| {
 | |
|     BDRVWriteToSelectedState *s = bs->opaque;
 | |
| 
 | |
|     if (s->selected && c == s->selected) {
 | |
|         *nperm = BLK_PERM_WRITE;
 | |
|         *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL & ~BLK_PERM_WRITE;
 | |
|     } else {
 | |
|         *nperm = 0;
 | |
|         *nshared = BLK_PERM_ALL;
 | |
|     }
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| static BlockDriver bdrv_write_to_selected = {
 | |
|     .format_name = "write-to-selected",
 | |
|     .instance_size = sizeof(BDRVWriteToSelectedState),
 | |
|     .bdrv_child_perm = write_to_selected_perms,
 | |
| };
 | |
| 
 | |
| 
 | |
| /*
 | |
|  * The following test shows that topological-sort order is required for
 | |
|  * permission update, simple DFS is not enough.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * Consider the block driver (write-to-selected) which has two children: one is
 | |
|  * selected so we have exclusive write access to it and for the other one we
 | |
|  * don't need any specific permissions.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * And, these two children has a common base child, like this:
 | |
|  *   (additional "top" on top is used in test just because the only public
 | |
|  *    function to update permission should get a specific child to update.
 | |
|  *    Making bdrv_refresh_perms() public just for this test isn't worth it)
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * ┌─────┐     ┌───────────────────┐     ┌─────┐
 | |
|  * │ fl2 │ ◀── │ write-to-selected │ ◀── │ top │
 | |
|  * └─────┘     └───────────────────┘     └─────┘
 | |
|  *   │           │
 | |
|  *   │           │ w
 | |
|  *   │           ▼
 | |
|  *   │         ┌──────┐
 | |
|  *   │         │ fl1  │
 | |
|  *   │         └──────┘
 | |
|  *   │           │
 | |
|  *   │           │ w
 | |
|  *   │           ▼
 | |
|  *   │         ┌──────┐
 | |
|  *   └───────▶ │ base │
 | |
|  *             └──────┘
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * So, exclusive write is propagated.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * Assume, we want to select fl2 instead of fl1.
 | |
|  * So, we set some option for write-to-selected driver and do permission update.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * With simple DFS, if permission update goes first through
 | |
|  * write-to-selected -> 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 write-to-selected -> 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.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * With topological-sort order we always update parents before children, so fl1
 | |
|  * and fl2 are both updated when we update base and there is no conflict.
 | |
|  */
 | |
| static void test_parallel_perm_update(void)
 | |
| {
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *top = no_perm_node("top");
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *ws =
 | |
|             bdrv_new_open_driver(&bdrv_write_to_selected, "ws", BDRV_O_RDWR,
 | |
|                                  &error_abort);
 | |
|     BDRVWriteToSelectedState *s = ws->opaque;
 | |
|     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() eats child bs reference, so we need two @base
 | |
|      * references for two filters:
 | |
|      */
 | |
|     bdrv_ref(base);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_wrlock();
 | |
|     bdrv_attach_child(top, ws, "file", &child_of_bds, BDRV_CHILD_DATA,
 | |
|                       &error_abort);
 | |
|     c_fl1 = bdrv_attach_child(ws, fl1, "first", &child_of_bds,
 | |
|                               BDRV_CHILD_DATA, &error_abort);
 | |
|     c_fl2 = bdrv_attach_child(ws, fl2, "second", &child_of_bds,
 | |
|                               BDRV_CHILD_DATA, &error_abort);
 | |
|     bdrv_attach_child(fl1, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
 | |
|                       BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
 | |
|                       &error_abort);
 | |
|     bdrv_attach_child(fl2, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
 | |
|                       BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
 | |
|                       &error_abort);
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_wrunlock();
 | |
| 
 | |
|     /* Select fl1 as first child to be active */
 | |
|     s->selected = c_fl1;
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_rdlock_main_loop();
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE);
 | |
|     assert(!(c_fl2->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE));
 | |
| 
 | |
|     /* Now, try to switch active child and update permissions */
 | |
|     s->selected = c_fl2;
 | |
|     bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     assert(c_fl2->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE);
 | |
|     assert(!(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE));
 | |
| 
 | |
|     /* Switch once more, to not care about real child order in the list */
 | |
|     s->selected = c_fl1;
 | |
|     bdrv_child_refresh_perms(top, top->children.lh_first, &error_abort);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     assert(c_fl1->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE);
 | |
|     assert(!(c_fl2->perm & BLK_PERM_WRITE));
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_rdunlock_main_loop();
 | |
|     bdrv_unref(top);
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| /*
 | |
|  * It's possible that filter required permissions allows to insert it to backing
 | |
|  * chain, like:
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *  1.  [top] -> [filter] -> [base]
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * but doesn't allow to add it as a branch:
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *  2.  [filter] --\
 | |
|  *                 v
 | |
|  *      [top] -> [base]
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * So, inserting such filter should do all graph modifications and only then
 | |
|  * update permissions. If we try to go through intermediate state [2] and update
 | |
|  * permissions on it we'll fail.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * Let's check that bdrv_append() can append such a filter.
 | |
|  */
 | |
| static void test_append_greedy_filter(void)
 | |
| {
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *top = exclusive_writer_node("top");
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *base = no_perm_node("base");
 | |
|     BlockDriverState *fl = exclusive_writer_node("fl1");
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_wrlock();
 | |
|     bdrv_attach_child(top, base, "backing", &child_of_bds,
 | |
|                       BDRV_CHILD_FILTERED | BDRV_CHILD_PRIMARY,
 | |
|                       &error_abort);
 | |
|     bdrv_graph_wrunlock();
 | |
| 
 | |
|     bdrv_append(fl, base, &error_abort);
 | |
|     bdrv_unref(fl);
 | |
|     bdrv_unref(top);
 | |
| }
 | |
| 
 | |
| int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 | |
| {
 | |
|     bdrv_init();
 | |
|     qemu_init_main_loop(&error_abort);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/update-perm-tree", test_update_perm_tree);
 | |
|     g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/should-update-child",
 | |
|                     test_should_update_child);
 | |
|     g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-perm-update",
 | |
|                     test_parallel_perm_update);
 | |
|     g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/parallel-exclusive-write",
 | |
|                     test_parallel_exclusive_write);
 | |
|     g_test_add_func("/bdrv-graph-mod/append-greedy-filter",
 | |
|                     test_append_greedy_filter);
 | |
| 
 | |
|     return g_test_run();
 | |
| }
 |