[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [BUGFIX][PATCH 3/4] hvm_save_one: return correct data.
 
 
| 
  
  
     On 15/12/2013 17:19, Don Slutz wrote: 
     
    
      
      On 12/15/13 11:51, Andrew Cooper
        wrote: 
       
      
        On 15/12/2013 00:29, Don Slutz
          wrote: 
         
         
          I think I have corrected all coding errors (please check
          again). And done all requested changes.  I did add the
          reviewed by (not sure if I should since this changes a large
          part of the patch, but they are all what Jan said).  
           
          I have unit tested it and it appears to work the same as the
          previous version (as expected).  
           
          Here is the new version, also attached.  
           
          From e0e8f5246ba492b153884cea93bfe753f1b0782e Mon Sep 17
          00:00:00 2001  
          From: Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
           
          Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:22:53 -0500  
          Subject: [PATCH v2 3/4] hvm_save_one: return correct data.  
           
          It is possible that hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].save does not
          use all  
          the provided room.  In that case, using:  
           
             instance * hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].size  
           
          does not select the correct instance.  Add code to search for
          the  
          correct instance.  
           
          Signed-off-by: Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
           
          Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
           
         
         
        but this fairs no better at selecting the correct subset in the
        case that less data than hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].size is
        written by hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].save. 
         
       
      True, but the inverse is the case here; .save writes 'n' 'size'
      blocks.  Form the loop above: 
       
          if ( hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].kind == HVMSR_PER_VCPU ) 
              for_each_vcpu(d, v) 
                  sz += hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].size; 
          else 
              sz = hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].size; 
       
      so sz is in multiples of 'size'.  Normally sz == ctxt.cur.  With
      some offline vcpus it write fewer 'size' blocks. 
       It
        always increments by 'size' bytes, and will only copy the data
        back if the bytes under desc->instance happen to match the
        instance we are looking for. 
         
       
      The only time it does not find one is for an offline vcpu.  Try
      out the unit test code in patch #1 on an unchanged xen.  It should
      not display anything.  Then offline a cpu in a domU (echo 0 >
      /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online).  And with 3 vcpus, it will
      report an error. 
       
         -Don Slutz 
     
     
    Ah - so there are actually two problems.  I see now the one you are
    trying to solve, and would agree that your code does solve it. 
     
    However, some of the save handlers are themselves variable length,
    and will write records shorter than hvm_sr_handlers[typecode].size
    if they can get away with doing so.  In this case, the new logic
    still wont get the correct instance. 
     
    ~Andrew
  
 |  
 _______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
 
 
    
     |