Re: [PATCH v3 15/21] migration/block-dirty-bitmap: relax error handling in incoming part

[Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy]

24.07.2020 20:35, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 7/24/20 3:43 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > Bitmaps data is not critical, and we should not fail the migration (or
> > use postcopy recovering) because of dirty-bitmaps migration failure.
> > Instead we should just lose unfinished bitmaps.
> >
> > Still we have to report io stream violation errors, as they affect the
> > whole migration stream.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
> > ---
> >   migration/block-dirty-bitmap.c | 152 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >   1 file changed, 117 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
> > @@ -650,15 +695,32 @@ static int dirty_bitmap_load_bits(QEMUFile *f, 
> > DBMLoadState *s)
> >       if (s->flags & DIRTY_BITMAP_MIG_FLAG_ZEROES) {
> >           trace_dirty_bitmap_load_bits_zeroes();
> > -        bdrv_dirty_bitmap_deserialize_zeroes(s->bitmap, first_byte, nr_bytes,
> > -                                             false);
> > +        if (!s->cancelled) {
> > +            bdrv_dirty_bitmap_deserialize_zeroes(s->bitmap, first_byte,
> > +                                                 nr_bytes, false);
> > +        }
> >       } else {
> >           size_t ret;
> >           uint8_t *buf;
> >           uint64_t buf_size = qemu_get_be64(f);
>
> Pre-existing, but if I understand, we are reading a value from the migration 
> stream...

Hmm, actually, this becomes worse after patch, as before patch we had the 
check, that the size at least corresponds to the bitmap.. But we want to relax 
things in cancelled mode (and we may not have any bitmap). Most correct thing 
is to use read in a loop to just skip the data from stream if we are in 
cancelled mode (something like nbd_drop()).

I can fix this with a follow-up patch.

> > -        uint64_t needed_size =
> > -            bdrv_dirty_bitmap_serialization_size(s->bitmap,
> > -                                                 first_byte, nr_bytes);
> > +        uint64_t needed_size;
> > +
> > +        buf = g_malloc(buf_size);
> > +        ret = qemu_get_buffer(f, buf, buf_size);
>
> ...and using it to malloc memory.  Is that a potential risk of a malicious 
> stream causing us to allocate too much memory in relation to the guest's normal 
> size?  If so, fixing that should be done separately.
>
> I'm not a migration expert, but the patch looks reasonable to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>


--
Best regards,
Vladimir