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

[Durrant, Paul]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 09 December 2019 17:18
> To: Durrant, Paul <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Juergen
> Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>; 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 Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 04:26:15PM +0000, Durrant, Paul wrote:
> > > > If you want unbind to actually do a proper unplug then that's extra
> work
> > > and not really something I want to tackle (and re-bind would still
> need to
> > > be toolstack initiated as something would have to re-create the
> xenstore
> > > area).
> > >
> > > Why do you say the xenstore area would need to be recreated?
> > >
> > > Setting state to closed shouldn't cause any cleanup of the xenstore
> > > area, as that should already happen for example when using pvgrub
> > > since in that case grub itself disconnects and already causes a
> > > transition to closed and a re-attachment afterwards by the guest
> > > kernel.
> > >
> >
> > For some reason, when I originally tested, the xenstore area
> disappeared. I checked again and it did not this time. I just ended up
> with a frontend stuck in state 5 (because it is the system disk and won't
> go offline) trying to talk to a non-existent backend. Upon re-bind the
> backend goes into state 5 (because it sees the 5 in the frontend) and
> leaves the guest wedged.
> 
> Likely blkfront should go back to init state, but anyway, that's not
> something that needs fixing as part of this series.
> 

Ok, cool.

I am wondering though whether we ought to suppress bind/unbind for drivers that don't whitelist themselves (through the new xenbus_driver flag that I'll add). It's somewhat misleading that the nodes are there but don't necessarily work.

  Paul