[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 4/4] libxl: support creation and destruction of static shared memory areas
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 11:49:35AM +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 01:26:37AM +0800, Zhongze Liu wrote: > > Hi Wei, > > > > Thank you for reviewing my patch. > > > > 2017-08-04 23:20 GMT+08:00 Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > I skim through this patch and have some questions. > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:20:25AM +0800, Zhongze Liu wrote: > > >> + > > >> +static int libxl__sshm_add_master(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, > > >> + libxl_static_shm *sshm) > > >> +{ > > >> + int rc, aborting; > > >> + char *sshm_path, *dom_path, *dom_role_path; > > >> + char *ents[11]; > > >> + struct xs_permissions noperm; > > >> + xs_transaction_t xt = XBT_NULL; > > >> + > > >> + sshm_path = libxl__xs_get_sshmpath(gc, sshm->id); > > >> + dom_path = libxl__xs_get_dompath(gc, domid); > > >> + /* the domain should be in xenstore by now */ > > >> + assert(dom_path); > > >> + dom_role_path = GCSPRINTF("%s/static_shm/%s/role", dom_path, > > >> sshm->id); > > >> + > > >> + > > >> + retry_transaction: > > >> + /* Within the transaction, goto out by default means aborting */ > > >> + aborting = 1; > > >> + rc = libxl__xs_transaction_start(gc, &xt); > > >> + if (rc) { goto out; } > > > > > > if (rc) goto out; > > > > OK. Will remove all the {}. BTW, do I have to place "goto out;" in a > > newline? > > > > Youc can look for examples in existing code and follow those. > > [...] > > >> +static int libxl__sshm_del_single(libxl__gc *gc, xs_transaction_t xt, > > >> + uint32_t domid, const char *id, bool > > >> master) > > >> +{ > > >> + char *sshm_path, *slaves_path; > > >> + > > >> + sshm_path = libxl__xs_get_sshmpath(gc, id); > > >> + slaves_path = GCSPRINTF("%s/slaves", sshm_path); > > >> + > > >> + if (master) { > > >> + /* we know that domid can't be both a master and a slave for > > >> one id, > > > > > > Is this enforced in code? > > > > Yes...and...no. I've done this in libxl__sshm_add_slave() by doing: > > > > + if (NULL != libxl__xs_read(gc, xt, dom_sshm_path)) { > > + SSHM_ERROR(domid, sshm->id, > > + "domain tried to share the same region > > twice."); > > + rc = ERROR_FAIL; > > + goto out; > > + } > > > > Maybe the comment is a little bit confusing. What I was planning to do is to > > place such a check in both *_add_slave() and *_add_master(), so that one > > ID can't appear twice within one domain, so that one domain will not be able > > to be both a master and a slave. > > > > OK this sounds plausible. > > > > > > >> + * so the number of slaves won't change during iteration. > > >> Simply check > > >> + * sshm_path/slavea to tell if there are still living slaves. */ > > >> + if (NULL != libxl__xs_read(gc, xt, slaves_path)) { > > >> + SSHM_ERROR(domid, id, > > >> + "can't remove master when there are living > > >> slaves."); > > >> + return ERROR_FAIL; > > > > > > Isn't this going to leave a half-destructed domain in userspace > > > components? Maybe we should proceed anyway? > > > > This is also among the points that I'm not very sure. What is the best way > > to handle this type of error during domain destruction? > > > > I think we should destroy everything in relation to the guest in Dom0 > (or other service domains). Some pages for the master guests might be > referenced by slaves, but they will eventually be freed (hence the > domain struct will be freed) within Xen. Do experiment with this to see > if my prediction is right. > > It also occurs to me you need to guard against circular references. That > is, DomA and DomB have a mutual master-slave relationship. > This probably can't happen because you can't construct such pair of guests in the first place. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |