RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1160964 - can boot guest successfully inside qemu if maxcpus don't match topology in -smp
Summary: can boot guest successfully inside qemu if maxcpus don't match topology in -smp
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: qemu-kvm-rhev
Version: 7.1
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
low
low
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Eduardo Habkost
QA Contact: Guo, Zhiyi
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-11-06 03:27 UTC by Lin Chen
Modified: 2016-11-07 20:16 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version: qemu-kvm-rhev-2.6.0-1.el7
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-07 20:16:25 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2016:2673 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE qemu-kvm-rhev bug fix and enhancement update 2016-11-08 01:06:13 UTC

Description Lin Chen 2014-11-06 03:27:46 UTC 
Description of problem:
can boot guest successfully inside qemu if maxcpus don't match topology:
"-smp x,cores=a,thread=b,socket=c,maxcpus=y" (y>x and a*b*c=y)


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
 uname -r
  3.10.0-195.el7.x86_64
 rpm -qa|grep qemu
  qemu-kvm-rhev-2.1.2-5.el7.x86_64


How reproducible:
100%


Steps to Reproduce:
1.boot guest with command:
 /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -smp 3,cores=1,threads=1,sockets=1,maxcpus=8


Actual results:
boot guest successfully

Expected results:
fail to boot guest.
it's not possible to have more than 1 cpu with sockets=1,cores=1,threads=1, topology must match maxcpus.

Additional info:
Comment 2 Eduardo Habkost 2014-11-06 13:43:07 UTC 
(In reply to Lin Chen from comment #0)
> Steps to Reproduce:
> 1.boot guest with command:
>  /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -smp 3,cores=1,threads=1,sockets=1,maxcpus=8

This is invalid configuration. QEMU can reject it in the future, but it is not a bug.
Comment 3 Andrew Jones 2014-11-06 16:14:37 UTC 
This BZ got me looking at smp_parse(), and there are a couple issues. I just sent a patch upstream for them.

Here are some tests that expose the issues I saw

# The topology doesn't necessarily support up to max_cpus
-smp 4,sockets=2,maxcpus=8  sockets=2 cores=2 threads=1 smp_cpus=4 max_cpus=8

# If the topology supports more than smp_cpus, then max_cpus should be higher
-smp 4,sockets=4,cores=2     sockets=4 cores=2 threads=1 smp_cpus=4 max_cpus=4

# smp_parse() shouldn't silently adjust the number of threads
-smp 4,sockets=1,cores=2,threads=1  sockets=1 cores=2 threads=2 smp_cpus=4 max_cpus=4
-smp 4,sockets=2,cores=2,threads=4,maxcpus=8  sockets=2 cores=2 threads=1 smp_cpus=4 max_cpus=8
Comment 4 Andrew Jones 2014-11-06 16:17:38 UTC 
(In reply to Andrew Jones from comment #3)
> This BZ got me looking at smp_parse(), and there are a couple issues. I just
> sent a patch upstream for them.
> 
> Here are some tests that expose the issues I saw

And what I think the results should be

> 
> # The topology doesn't necessarily support up to max_cpus
> -smp 4,sockets=2,maxcpus=8  sockets=2 cores=2 threads=1 smp_cpus=4 max_cpus=8
                                              ^ should be 4       
> 
> # If the topology supports more than smp_cpus, then max_cpus should be higher
> -smp 4,sockets=4,cores=2     sockets=4 cores=2 threads=1 smp_cpus=4
> max_cpus=4
           ^ should be 8
> 
> # smp_parse() shouldn't silently adjust the number of threads
> -smp 4,sockets=1,cores=2,threads=1  sockets=1 cores=2 threads=2 smp_cpus=4
> max_cpus=4
> -smp 4,sockets=2,cores=2,threads=4,maxcpus=8  sockets=2 cores=2 threads=1
> smp_cpus=4 max_cpus=8

These both should cause qemu to exit with some error messages.
Comment 5 Lin Chen 2014-11-07 02:05:55 UTC 
>/usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -smp 3,cores=1,threads=1,sockets=1,maxcpus=8
> This is invalid configuration. QEMU can reject it in the future, but it is
> not a bug.

Indeed,it is invalid configuration.So QEMU shouldn't allow it,because if boot guest with this configuration successfully guest will get 3 cpus but 1 core,1 thread and 1 socket.Isn't it a potential issue?
Comment 6 Eduardo Habkost 2014-11-10 14:17:22 UTC 
(In reply to Lin Chen from comment #5)
> >/usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -smp 3,cores=1,threads=1,sockets=1,maxcpus=8
> > This is invalid configuration. QEMU can reject it in the future, but it is
> > not a bug.
> 
> Indeed,it is invalid configuration.So QEMU shouldn't allow it,because if
> boot guest with this configuration successfully guest will get 3 cpus but 1
> core,1 thread and 1 socket.Isn't it a potential issue?

It is a potential issue, but the solution (until we implement the extra checks) is very simple: just don't run QEMU with an invalid configuration.
Comment 10 Eduardo Habkost 2016-06-23 23:01:44 UTC 
Should be fixed in the 2.6 rebase.
Comment 11 Guo, Zhiyi 2016-09-12 06:01:19 UTC 
Test against qemu-kvm-rhev-2.6.0-22.el7.x86_64:

case 1:
# /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -smp 3,cores=1,threads=1,sockets=1,maxcpus=8
qemu-kvm: cpu topology: sockets (1) * cores (1) * threads (1) < smp_cpus (3)

case 2:
# /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -smp 4,sockets=2,cores=2,threads=4,maxcpus=8
qemu-kvm: cpu topology: sockets (2) * cores (2) * threads (4) > maxcpus (8)

case 3:
# /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -smp 4,sockets=1,cores=2,threads=1
qemu-kvm: cpu topology: sockets (1) * cores (2) * threads (1) < smp_cpus (4)
Comment 12 Guo, Zhiyi 2016-09-12 06:11:04 UTC 
case 4:
# /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -smp 4,sockets=2,cores=2,threads=1,maxcpus=8 -monitor stdio
QEMU 2.6.0 monitor - type 'help' for more information
(qemu) VNC server running on '::1;5900'

Hi Eduardo,

Could you help to check whether qe can verify this bug? Thanks!

BR/
Guo,Zhiyi
Comment 13 Eduardo Habkost 2016-09-12 14:40:20 UTC 
(In reply to Guo, Zhiyi from comment #12)
> case 4:
> # /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm -smp 4,sockets=2,cores=2,threads=1,maxcpus=8
> -monitor stdio
> QEMU 2.6.0 monitor - type 'help' for more information
> (qemu) VNC server running on '::1;5900'
> 

This is expected. As "sockets" is used to calculate cores/threads automatically based on "cpus" only, not "maxcpus" (when socket and/or cores are omitted), we only ensure cpus <= (socket * cores * threads) <= maxcpus. Note that "sockets" is completely ignored when both "cores" and "threads" are specified, anyway, so this is just a sanity check to see if the requested configuration makes sense.
Comment 14 Guo, Zhiyi 2016-09-13 01:55:34 UTC 
Move to verified per comment 11-13
Comment 16 errata-xmlrpc 2016-11-07 20:16:25 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016-2673.html
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.