qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] docs: Add QED image format specifica


From: Avi Kivity
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] docs: Add QED image format specification
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:02:33 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.4

 On 10/11/2010 05:49 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 10/11/2010 09:58 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
A leak is unacceptable. It means an image can grow to an unbounded size. If you are a server provider offering multitenancy, then a malicious guest can potentially grow the image beyond it's allotted size causing a Denial of Service attack against another tenant.


This particular leak cannot grow, and is not controlled by the guest.

As the image gets moved from hypervisor to hypervisor, it can keep growing if given a chance to fill up the disk, then trim it all way.

In a mixed hypervisor environment, it just becomes a numbers game.

I don't see how it can grow. Both the freelist and the clusters it points to consume space, which becomes a leak once you move it to a hypervisor that doesn't understand the freelist. The older hypervisor then allocates new blocks. As soon as it performs a metadata scan (if ever), the freelist is reclaimed.

You could only get a growing leak if you moved it to a hypervisor that doesn't perform metadata scans, but then that is independent of the freelist.


A freelist has to be a non-optional feature. When the freelist bit is set, an older QEMU cannot read the image. If the freelist is completed used, the freelist bit can be cleared and the image is then usable by older QEMUs.

Once we support TRIM (or detect zeros) we'll never have a clean freelist.

Zero detection doesn't add to the free list.

Why not? If a cluster is zero filled, you may drop it (assuming no backing image).


A potential solution here is to treat TRIM a little differently than we've been discussing.

When TRIM happens, don't immediately write an unallocated cluster entry for the L2. Leave the L2 entry in-tact. Don't actually write a UCE to the L2 until you actually allocate the block.

This implies a cost because you'll need to do metadata syncs to make this work. However, that eliminates leakage.

The information is lost on shutdown; and you can have a large number of unallocated-in-waiting clusters (like a TRIM issued by mkfs, or a user expecting a visit from RIAA).

A slight twist on your proposal is to have an allocated-but-may-drop bit in a L2 entry. TRIM or zero detection sets the bit (leaving the cluster number intact). A following write to the cluster needs to clear the bit; if we reallocate the cluster we need to replace it with a ZCE.

This makes the freelist all L2 entries with the bit set; it may be less efficient than a custom data structure though.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]