Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/3] qemu: event: Don't fiddle with disk backing trees without a job

On 08.04.2015 08:35, Michael Chapman wrote: > On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Peter Krempa wrote: >> Surprisingly we did not grab a VM job when a block job finished and we'd >> happily rewrite the backing chain data. This made it possible to crash >> libvirt when queueing two backing chains tightly and other

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/3] qemu: event: Don't fiddle with disk backing trees without a job

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Peter Krempa wrote: Surprisingly we did not grab a VM job when a block job finished and we'd happily rewrite the backing chain data. This made it possible to crash libvirt when queueing two backing chains tightly and other badness. To fix it, add yet another handler to the h

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/3] qemu: event: Don't fiddle with disk backing trees without a job

On 03/13/2015 10:25 AM, Peter Krempa wrote: > Surprisingly we did not grab a VM job when a block job finished and we'd > happily rewrite the backing chain data. This made it possible to crash > libvirt when queueing two backing chains tightly and other badness. My fault for violating the rule of '

[libvirt] [PATCH 2/3] qemu: event: Don't fiddle with disk backing trees without a job

Surprisingly we did not grab a VM job when a block job finished and we'd happily rewrite the backing chain data. This made it possible to crash libvirt when queueing two backing chains tightly and other badness. To fix it, add yet another handler to the helper thread that handles monitor events th