[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [RFC PATCH 2/2] qemu: Force capabilities cache read if libvirtd date is different



On 20.05.2015 19:35, John Ferlan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/20/2015 10:22 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
>> s/read/refresh/ in the commit message?
>>
>> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 08:52:57AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195882
>>>
>>> Original commit id 'cbde3589' indicates that the cache file would be
>>> discarded if either the QEMU binary or libvirtd 'ctime' changes; however,
>>> the code only discarded if the QEMU binary time didn't match or if the
>>> new libvirtd ctime was later than what created the cache file.
>>>
>>> This could lead to issues with respect to how the order of libvirtd images
>>> is created for maintenance or patch branches where if someone had a libvirtd
>>> created on 'date x' that was created from (a) backported patch(es) followed
>>> by a subsequent install of the primary release which would have 'date y'
>>> where if 'date x' was greater than 'date y', then features in a primary
>>> release branch may not be available.
>>
>> I can see how here can be two daemons with different ctimes on the same
>> system during development, so ACK to the change.
> 
> But they'd use different cache paths, right?
> 
>>
>> However, when you install the daemon (even from an older package), ctime
>> should only move forward, so I'm sceptical about its relevance to the
>> referenced bug.
> 
> Perhaps that my misinterpretation or misunderstanding of ctime -
> certainly in a different OS I used to work on many years ago - ctime was
> when the image was created by a build and not when the inode or file
> change time as I (now) read...
> 
> So hmmm... that blows my theory to shreds - unless you account for that
> window of time during an install where files are being replaced while
> libvirtd is still running an older release. As Dan notes in my 1/2
> removing the cache in between would be racey. So would it also be racey
> if something caused a cache read, code finds updated libvirtd, asks qemu
> for current capabilities, gets answer, creates file based on current (or
> old) understanding... Then when libvirtd restarts it finds a ctime of
> itself, doesn't update the cache, and of course doesn't have the latest
> bits.

How about computing a hash of the qemu binary, and if hashes do not
equal recompile the cache?

Michal


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]