On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 10:48:09AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 05:29:06AM +0000, Raphael Norwitz wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:55:00AM +0200, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 05:17:01PM +0000, Raphael Norwitz wrote: > > > > > In the vhost-user-blk-test, as of now there is nothing stoping > > > > > vhost-user-blk in QEMU writing to the socket right after forking off > > > > > the > > > > > storage daemon before it has a chance to come up properly, leaving the > > > > > test hanging forever. This intermittently hanging test has caused QEMU > > > > > automation failures reported multiple times on the mailing list [1]. > > > > > > > > > > This change makes the storage-daemon notify the vhost-user-blk-test > > > > > that it is fully initialized and ready to handle client connections by > > > > > creating a pidfile on initialiation. This ensures that the > > > > > storage-daemon > > > > > backend won't miss vhost-user messages and thereby resolves the hang. > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_qemu-2Ddevel_CAFEAcA8kYpz9LiPNxnWJAPSjc-3Dnv532bEdyfynaBeMeohqBp3A-40mail.gmail.com_&d=DwIBAg&c=s883GpUCOChKOHiocYtGcg&r=In4gmR1pGzKB8G5p6LUrWqkSMec2L5EtXZow_FZNJZk&m=fB3Xs9HB_Joc1WbeoKGaipFGQA7TPiMQPKa9OS04FM8&s=buSM5F3BMoUQEmVsEOXaCdERM0onDwoqit7nbLblkVs&e= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Stefan, > > > > > > > Hi Raphael, > > > > I would like to understand the issue that is being worked around in the > > > > patch. > > > > > > > > QEMU should be okay with listen fd passing. The qemu-storage-daemon > > > > documentation even contains example code for this > > > > (docs/tools/qemu-storage-daemon.rst) and that may need to be updated if > > > > listen fd passing is fundamentally broken. > > > > > > > > > > The issue is that the "client" (in this case vhost-user-blk in QEMU) can > > > proceed to use the socket before the storage-daemon has a chance to > > > properly start up and monitor it. This is nothing unique to the > > > storage-daemon - I've seen races like this happen happend with different > > > vhost-user backends before. > > > > > > Yes - I do think the docs can be improved to explicitly state that the > > > storage-daemon must be allowed to properly initialize before any data is > > > sent over the socket. Maybe we should even perscribe the use of the > > > pidfile > > > option? > > > > > > > Can you share more details about the problem? > > > > > > > > > > Did you see my analysis [1]? > > > > > > [1] > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_qemu-2Ddevel_20210827165253.GA14291-40raphael-2Ddebian-2Ddev_&d=DwIBAg&c=s883GpUCOChKOHiocYtGcg&r=In4gmR1pGzKB8G5p6LUrWqkSMec2L5EtXZow_FZNJZk&m=fB3Xs9HB_Joc1WbeoKGaipFGQA7TPiMQPKa9OS04FM8&s=o_S2kKO4RQnWw2QnzVi7dgOwgiPbusI9Zche7mWV22I&e= > > > > > > > > > Basically QEMU sends VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES across the vhost > > > socket and the storage daemon never receives it. Looking at the > > > QEMU state we see it is stuck waiting for a vhost-user response. Meanwhile > > > the storage-daemon never receives any message to begin with. AFAICT > > > there is nothing stopping QEMU from running first and sending a message > > > before vhost-user-blk comes up, and from testing we can see that waiting > > > for the storage-daemon to come up resolves the problem completely. > > > > The root cause has not been determined yet. QEMU should accept the > > incoming connection and then read the previously-sent > > VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES message. There is no reason at the > > Sockets API level why the message should get lost, so there is probably > > a QEMU bug here. > > Right. However the test does randomly hang for people and it's > not really of interest to anyone. I think we should apply the > work-around but yes we should keep working on the root cause, too. >
From my end I have spent some more time looking at it but have not made much progress. I was hopeful that David HiIdenbrand’s libvhost-user bug fixes may have resolved it, but I tested and even with his patches I still see the hang. I am determined to get to the bottom of it, but I’m not sure how long it will take. If this is impacting people than I agree with merging the patch as a workaround. From my end, I will send a v6 updating the commit message and add comments to make it clear that the patch is a workaround and the root cause has not been determined yet. Sound good? > > > > > Does "writing to the socket" mean writing vhost-user protocol messages > > > > or does it mean connect(2)? > > > > > > > > > > Yes - it means writing vhost-user messages. We see a message sent from > > > QEMU to the backend. > > > > > > Note that in qtest_socket_server() (called from create_listen_socket()) > > > we have already called listen() on the socket, so I would expect QEMU > > > calling connect(2) to succeed and proceed to successfully send messages > > > whether or not there is another listener. I even tried commenting out the > > > execlp for the storage-daemon and I saw the same behavior from QEMU - it > > > sends the message and hangs indefinitely. > > > > QEMU is correct in waiting for a vhost-user reply. The question is why > > qemu-storage-daemon's vhost-user-block export isn't processing the > > request and replying to it? > > > > > > Could the problem be that vhost-user-blk-test.c creates the listen fds > > > > and does not close them? This means the host network stack doesn't > > > > consider the socket closed after QEMU terminates and therefore the test > > > > process hangs after QEMU is gone? In that case vhost-user-blk-test needs > > > > to close the fds after spawning qemu-storage-daemon. > > > > > > > > > > When the test hangs both QEMU and storage-daemon are still up and > > > connected to the socket and waiting for messages from each other. I don't > > > see how we would close the FD in this state or how it would help. > > > > Yes, I see. In that case the theory about fds doesn't apply. > > > > > We may want to think about implementing some kind of timeoout for initial > > > vhost-user messages so that we fail instead of hang in cases like these, > > > as I proposed in [1]. What do you think? > > > > Let's hold off on workarounds until the root cause has been found. > > > > Do you have time to debug why vu_accept() and vu_message_read() don't > > see the pending VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES message? > > > > Thanks, > > Stefan > >
