On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 06:40:12PM -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote:
> Peter Xu <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 05:46:49PM +0000, Pawel Zmarzly wrote:
> >> Snapshots made with mapped-ram and x-ignore-shared flags are
> >> not parsed properly.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pawel Zmarzly <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> migration/ram.c | 5 +++++
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c
> >> index 29f016cb25..85fdc810ab 100644
> >> --- a/migration/ram.c
> >> +++ b/migration/ram.c
> >> @@ -4277,6 +4277,11 @@ static int parse_ramblocks(QEMUFile *f, ram_addr_t
> >> total_ram_bytes)
> >> id[len] = 0;
> >> length = qemu_get_be64(f);
> >>
> >> + if (migrate_ignore_shared()) {
> >> + /* Read and discard the x-ignore-shared memory region address
> >> */
> >> + qemu_get_be64(f);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> block = qemu_ram_block_by_name(id);
> >> if (block) {
> >> ret = parse_ramblock(f, block, length);
> >> --
> >> 2.52.0
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the patch, though the u64 was parsed in parse_ramblock()
> > instead. Would you consider refactoring that function instead?
>
> There's actually not much going on in terms of "parsing" in
> parse_ramblock(). I think we could move the migrate_ignore_shared() from
> the end of the function to before the mapped-ram check().
Yes, that's also what I meant if it wasn't clear.. it was parsed into a
hwaddr, and it was used to verify the addresses match.
If that check is needed for ignore-shared blocks, then these checks should
also apply when mapped-ram is enabled on top of whatever ramblock got
ignored during migration.
Since the discussion started, I am actually not sure if we do this all
right for two things..
(1) When mapped-ram is enabled, do we actually need to setup those
ramblocks in mapped_ram_setup_ramblock()?
That is, when a ramblock returns migrate_ram_is_ignored()==true, IIUC
we don't need to allocate bitmap or page chunks for it?
We likely don't need to change this easily, because this will change
file format.. I'm also not sure if this is a major issue, logically
when ignore-shared is used we normally shouldn't need mapped-ram.. vice
versa. So I may need to better understand the use case first on
enabling the two..
(2) Is the check proper on validating mr->addr didn't change?
This is a question on the check itself when ignore-shared enabled,
with/without mapped-ram enabled. That is, I question whether this
check is useful or valid at all:
if (migrate_ignore_shared()) {
hwaddr addr = qemu_get_be64(f);
if (migrate_ram_is_ignored(block) &&
block->mr->addr != addr) {
error_report("Mismatched GPAs for block %s "
"%" PRId64 "!= %" PRId64, block->idstr,
(uint64_t)addr, (uint64_t)block->mr->addr);
return -EINVAL;
}
}
In the error, it said "GPA", but mr->addr isn't GPA.. it's the offset
of the MR within the MR's parent container MR.. So if the parent is
the root MR / system_memory, then it is the GPA, however I don't see it
guaranteed..
My gut feeling is we almost always rely on proper QEMU cmdlines anyway
to make migration work. I wonder if we should just remove this check
(in case it might break when mr's parent isn't the root MR).
This is irrelevant of this specific fix, so it doesn't need to block a
repost..
--
Peter Xu
