Bug 1728461
| Summary: | qemu gets ABRT when attach a existing qcow2 disk and then detach it | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Virtualization | Reporter: | Han Han <hhan> |
| Component: | qemu-kvm | Assignee: | Ademar Reis <areis> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | CongLi <coli> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 8.1 | CC: | coli, dyuan, fjin, hreitz, jgao, jinzhao, juzhang, ngu, ribarry, virt-maint, xuzhang, yafu, yisun |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | 1728459 | Environment: | |
| Last Closed: | 2019-07-11 01:45:21 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 1722090, 1728459 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Han Han
2019-07-10 03:31:37 UTC
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1529454 *** The backtrace certainly looks like it, but the problem is that I cannot reproduce the problem at all with upstream libvirt (neither with qemu-kvm-rhev-2.12.0-33.el7 nor with qemu-kvm-4.0.0-5.module+el8.1.0+3622+5812d9bf). I’m trying to get a downstream version running, but no luck so far.
I mean, I can do this for RHV 7:
$ qemu-img create -f qcow2 /tmp/a.qcow2 64M; \
(echo "{'execute':'qmp_capabilities'}
{'execute':'__com.redhat_drive_add',
'arguments':{'id':'drv0','file':'/tmp/a.qcow2','driver':'qcow2'}}";
sleep 1;
rm /tmp/a.qcow2;
echo "{'execute':'__com.redhat_drive_del',
'arguments':{'id':'drv0'}}") \
| $RHV7_QEMU -qmp stdio
Formatting '/tmp/a.qcow2', fmt=qcow2 size=67108864 cluster_size=65536 lazy_refcounts=off refcount_bits=16
{"QMP": {"version": {"qemu": {"micro": 0, "minor": 12, "major": 2}, "package": "v2.12.0-917-gdd55d8a500"}, "capabilities": []}}
{"return": {}}
{"return": {}}
Unexpected error in raw_reconfigure_getfd() at block/file-posix.c:903:
Could not reopen file: No such file or directory
[1] 23320 done ( echo ; sleep 1; rm /tmp/a.qcow2; echo ; ) |
23321 abort (core dumped) $RHV7_QEMU -qmp stdio
But the difference is that I delete the file in between. In any case, that would be the same as BZ 1722090.
Now, for RHEL 8 AV, the corresponding BZ is BZ 1709791. The problem described in BZ 1529454 should actually be fixed already, compare BZ 1529454 comment 29.
Max
(In reply to Max Reitz from comment #3) > The backtrace certainly looks like it, but the problem is that I cannot > reproduce the problem at all with upstream libvirt (neither with > qemu-kvm-rhev-2.12.0-33.el7 nor with > qemu-kvm-4.0.0-5.module+el8.1.0+3622+5812d9bf). I’m trying to get a > downstream version running, but no luck so far. > > I mean, I can do this for RHV 7: > > $ qemu-img create -f qcow2 /tmp/a.qcow2 64M; \ > (echo "{'execute':'qmp_capabilities'} > {'execute':'__com.redhat_drive_add', > 'arguments':{'id':'drv0','file':'/tmp/a.qcow2','driver':'qcow2'}}"; > sleep 1; > rm /tmp/a.qcow2; > echo "{'execute':'__com.redhat_drive_del', > 'arguments':{'id':'drv0'}}") \ > | $RHV7_QEMU -qmp stdio > Formatting '/tmp/a.qcow2', fmt=qcow2 size=67108864 cluster_size=65536 > lazy_refcounts=off refcount_bits=16 > {"QMP": {"version": {"qemu": {"micro": 0, "minor": 12, "major": 2}, > "package": "v2.12.0-917-gdd55d8a500"}, "capabilities": []}} > {"return": {}} > {"return": {}} > Unexpected error in raw_reconfigure_getfd() at block/file-posix.c:903: > Could not reopen file: No such file or directory > [1] 23320 done ( echo ; sleep 1; rm /tmp/a.qcow2; echo ; > ) | > 23321 abort (core dumped) $RHV7_QEMU -qmp stdio > > But the difference is that I delete the file in between. In any case, that > would be the same as BZ 1722090. > > > Now, for RHEL 8 AV, the corresponding BZ is BZ 1709791. The problem > described in BZ 1529454 should actually be fixed already, compare BZ 1529454 > comment 29. > > Max Thanks Max for the confirmation. Close this bug as a dup to BZ1709791. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1709791 *** |