On 10/13/2015 02:36 AM, Wang Yufei wrote:
> On 2015/10/2 20:17, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 09/26/2015 08:18 AM, Wang Yufei wrote:
>>> We shutdown a VM A by qemu agent,meanwhile an agent EOF
>>> of VM A happened, there's a chance that deadlock occurred:
>>>
>>> qemuProcessHandleAgentEOF in main thread
>>> A) priv->agent = NULL; //A happened before B
>>>
>>> //deadlock when we get agent lock which's held by worker thread
>>> qemuAgentClose(agent);
>>>
>>> qemuDomainObjExitAgent called by qemuDomainShutdownFlags in worker thread
>>> B) hasRefs = virObjectUnref(priv->agent); //priv->agent is NULL, return
>>> false
>>>
>>> if (hasRefs)
>>> virObjectUnlock(priv->agent); //agent lock will not be released here
>>>
>>> So I close agent first, then set priv->agent NULL to fix the deadlock.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufei <james.wangyu...@huawei.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Ren Guannan <renguan...@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 3 +--
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Interesting - this is the exact opposite of commit id '1020a504' from
>> Michal over 3 years ago.
>>
>> However, a bit of digging into the claim from the commit message drove
>> me to commit id '362d04779c' which removes the domain object lock that
>> was the basis of the initial patch.
>>
>> While I'm not an expert in the vmagent code, I do note that the
>> HandleAgentEOF code checks for !priv->agent and priv->beingDestroyed,
>> while the ExitAgent code doesn't necessarily (or directly) check whether
>> the priv->agent is still valid (IOW: that nothing else has removed it
>> already like the EOF).
>>
>> So, while I don't discount that the patch works - I'm wondering whether
>> the smarts/logic should be built into ExitAgent to check for
>> !priv->agent (and or something else) that would indicate we're already
>> on the path of shutdown.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
>>> index f2586a1..8c9622e 100644
>>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
>>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
>>> @@ -150,11 +150,10 @@ qemuProcessHandleAgentEOF(qemuAgentPtr agent,
>>> goto unlock;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + qemuAgentClose(agent);
>>> priv->agent = NULL;
>>>
>>> virObjectUnlock(vm);
>>> -
>>> - qemuAgentClose(agent);
>>> return;
>>>
>>> unlock:
>>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> At first, we should consider about the right logic. In my oppinion, we should
> call
> qemuAgentClose at first, then we set priv->agent NULL, just like the logic in
> qemuProcessStop.
>
> if (priv->agent) {
> qemuAgentClose(priv->agent);
> priv->agent = NULL;
> priv->agentError = false;
> }
>
> Base on the right logic, we consider about the right lock which I have shown
> in my patch.
>
> Whether the smarts/logic should be built into ExitAgent to check for
> !priv->agent (and or
> something else) that would indicate we're already on the path of shutdown?
>
> The answer is yes, we have to, because in ExitAgent we use agent lock which
> may be released
> by other thread like qemuAgentClose, we have to check the agent first to make
> sure it's
> safe to visit.
>
>
It doesn't feel right that moving qemuAgentClose to inside where the vm
lock is held will fix the issue. Or does the virCondSignal (e.g.
pthread_cond_signal or pthread_cond_broadcast) release the mutex that
would be held by the thread that did the EnterAgent?
So let's go back to your scenario again where A happens before B... As
I see it, the bug is in B which has accesses and unreferences
priv->agent *without* first getting the vm lock (like other instances),
and assuming that priv->agent could still be valid (or the same) between
the time the vm was unlocked in EnterAgent and the point at which we are
at in ExitAgent.
So the bug would then seem to be in the EnterAgent, run Agent command,
ExitAgent sequence. Since we release the vm lock during EnterAgent,
"anything" that could alter the priv->agent setting while the lock is
not held needs to be handled.
Thus perhaps the fix should be (in all callers)
agent = priv->agent;
EnterAgent(vm);
*Agent* Command
ExitAgent(vm, agent)
Where in ExitAgent then has:
virObjectLock(obj);
if (priv->agent != agent)
VIR_DEBUG("priv->agent=%p differs from agent=%p"
priv->agent, agent);
virObjectUnlock(agent);
return;
}
if ((hasRefs = virObjectUnref(priv->agent)))
virObjectUnlock(priv->agent);
VIR_DEBUG("Exited agent (agent=%p vm=%p name=%s hasRefs=%d)",
priv->agent, obj, obj->def->name, hasRefs);
priv->agentStart = 0;
if (!hasRefs)
priv->agent = NULL;
Does this seem reasonable?
John
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
