RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] xenbus: limit when state is forced to closed

[Durrant, Paul]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JÃrgen Groà <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 09 December 2019 14:41
> To: Durrant, Paul <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau MonnÃ
> <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stefano
> Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; Boris Ostrovsky
> <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] xenbus: limit when state is forced to
> closed
> 
> On 09.12.19 15:23, Durrant, Paul wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: JÃrgen Groà <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: 09 December 2019 14:10
> >> To: Durrant, Paul <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau MonnÃ
> >> <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Stefano
> >> Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; Boris Ostrovsky
> >> <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] xenbus: limit when state is forced
> to
> >> closed
> >>
> >> On 09.12.19 15:06, Durrant, Paul wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: JÃrgen Groà <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Sent: 09 December 2019 13:39
> >>>> To: Durrant, Paul <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau MonnÃ
> >>>> <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >> Stefano
> >>>> Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; Boris Ostrovsky
> >>>> <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] xenbus: limit when state is
> forced
> >> to
> >>>> closed
> >>>>
> >>>> On 09.12.19 13:19, Durrant, Paul wrote:
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: JÃrgen Groà <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Sent: 09 December 2019 12:09
> >>>>>> To: Durrant, Paul <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau MonnÃ
> >>>>>> <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >>>> Stefano
> >>>>>> Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; Boris Ostrovsky
> >>>>>> <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] xenbus: limit when state is
> >> forced
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> closed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 09.12.19 13:03, Durrant, Paul wrote:
> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>> From: JÃrgen Groà <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>> Sent: 09 December 2019 11:55
> >>>>>>>> To: Roger Pau Monnà <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>; Durrant, Paul
> >>>>>>>> <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >>>>>> Stefano
> >>>>>>>> Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; Boris Ostrovsky
> >>>>>>>> <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] xenbus: limit when state is
> >>>> forced
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> closed
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 09.12.19 12:39, Roger Pau Monnà wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 02:01:21PM +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Only force state to closed in the case when the toolstack may
> >> need
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> clean up. This can be detected by checking whether the state in
> >>>>>>>> xenstore
> >>>>>>>>>> has been set to closing prior to device removal.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I see the point of this, I would expect that a
> >> failure
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> probe or the removal of the device would leave the xenbus state
> as
> >>>>>>>>> closed, which is consistent with the actual driver state.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Can you explain what's the benefit of leaving a device without a
> >>>>>>>>> driver in such unknown state?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And more concerning: did you check that no frontend/backend is
> >>>>>>>> relying on the closed state to be visible without closing having
> >> been
> >>>>>>>> set before?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Blkfront doesn't seem to mind and I believe the Windows PV drivers
> >>>> cope,
> >>>>>> but I don't really understand the comment since this patch is
> >> actually
> >>>>>> removing a case where the backend transitions directly to closed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not speaking of blkfront/blkback only, but of net, tpm, scsi,
> >>>> pvcall
> >>>>>> etc. frontends/backends. After all you are modifying a function
> >> common
> >>>>>> to all PV driver pairs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are removing a state switc to "closed" in case the state was
> >> _not_
> >>>>>> "closing" before.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, which AFAIK is against the intention of the generic PV protocol
> >>>> such that it ever existed anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>> While this might be the case we should _not_ break any guests
> >>>> running now. So this kind of reasoning is dangerous.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> So any PV driver reacting to "closed" of the other end
> >>>>>> in case the previous state might not have been "closing" before is
> at
> >>>>>> risk to misbehave with your patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, they will see nothing now. If the state was not closing, it
> gets
> >>>> left alone, so the frontend shouldn't do anything. The only risk that
> I
> >>>> can see is that some frontend/backend pair needed a direct 4 -> 6
> >>>> transition to support 'unbind' before but AFAIK nothing has ever
> >> supported
> >>>> that, and blk and net crash'n'burn if you try that on upstream as it
> >>>> stands. A clean unplug would always set state to 5 first, since
> that's
> >>>> part of the unplug protocol.
> >>>>
> >>>> That was my question: are you sure all current and previous
> >>>> guest frontends and backends are handling unplug this way?
> >>>>
> >>>> Not "should handle", but "do handle".
> >>>
> >>> That depends on the toolstack. IIUC the only 'supported' toolstack is
> >> xl/libxl, which will set 'state' to 5 and 'online' to 0 to initiate an
> >> unplug.
> >>
> >> I guess libvirt/libxl is doing the same?
> >>
> >
> > The unplug mechansism is all in libxl AFAICT, so it should be identical.
> >
> >> At least at SUSE we still have some customers running xend based
> >> Xen installations with recent Linux or Windows guests.
> >>
> >
> > Is that something the upstream code can/should support though? I'd be
> surprised if xend is actually doing anything different to libxl since I've
> been coding the Windows PV drivers to trigger off the combined
> closing/online transition for as long as I can remember.
> 
> I'd rather not have to carry a private patch for new Linux kernel to be
> able to run on those hosts.
> 
> AFAIK you at Amazon have some quite old Xen installations, too. How are
> you handling that (assuming the customer is updating the kernel to a
> recent version in his guest)?

I'm not aware of any problems running with xend (but I'm not I the loop on everything). I think it is still a reasonably safe assumption that xend initiated unplug cleanly and doesn't rely on a 4 -> 6 transition.

  Paul

> 
> 
> Juergen