WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: xl create should refuse to share block devices RW betwee

To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: xl create should refuse to share block devices RW between domains
From: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:33:17 +0100
Cc: "Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:34:11 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C4EF9FF.6090906@xxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4C4E2A06.9070604@xxxxxxxx> <19534.63648.652292.804989@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C4EF9FF.6090906@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeremy Fitzhardinge writes ("Re: xl create should refuse to share block devices 
RW between domains"):
> Well, my specific use case is that I have pairs of domain configs, one 
> PV, one HVM, referring to the same set of resources.  I want xl create 
> to catch when I try and create the PV version of a domain while the HVM 
> is still running.

Mmm.  Of course an HVM domain needs to open the underlying device
twice, once for blktap and once for qemu.

> A more comprehensive check would be nice, but just this would be 
> useful.  But whatever it does check should be 100% reliable.

Well, I guess I meant:

 1. Do we have to catch every possible conflict ?  If so then
    your e2fsprogs example is one we need to consider, and we
    will have to add a new kernel feature which can prevent e2fsprogs
    from opening the block device, or simulate "mounting" it or
    something.

 1b. If not, then which conflicts are we trying to detect ?

 2. If we catch a particular combination (eg, start two domains at
    once using the same storage resources) does our check have to be
    race-free ?  That may make it more complicated - and if the answer
    to my first question is "no" there will be some things which are
    inherently racy (eg, spotting mounting a domain's disk
    vs. starting a domain with a disk which is mounted).

NB that when we fix the bug that you can start multiple domains with
the same name, you'll be able to avoid your PV/HVM accident by
specifying the same name in each config file.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel