[Users] [User] why VM image owner change to root after stop the vm

[Martin Kletzander]

OK, so it is done by libvirt. However, I was trying to reproduce this
and I was looking in the code and it looks like your config file
settings are not reflected in libvirt (does the ownership change also
after libvirt restart?). There is no chown called when dynamic ownership
is turned off. The only thing I haven't tried is checking older versions
of libvirt, but this code haven't changed that much.

On 07/26/2012 05:28 PM, T-Sinjon wrote:
> sorry for my careless , they all libvirtd
> 
> [root at ovirt-node-sun-1 ~]# top -b -n 2 -H -p 1209
> top - 15:25:08 up 3 days,  9:11,  3 users,  load average: 0.06, 0.49, 0.39
> Tasks:  11 total,   0 running,  11 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
> Cpu(s):  0.7%us,  1.3%sy,  0.0%ni, 97.7%id,  0.0%wa,  0.1%hi,  0.1%si,  0.0%st
> Mem:  16436060k total,  7349120k used,  9086940k free,    69100k buffers
> Swap:        0k total,        0k used,        0k free,  2239792k cached
> 
>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND            
>  1209 root      20   0  909m  17m 7164 S  0.0  0.1   1:33.10 libvirtd           
>  1515 root      20   0  909m  17m 7164 S  0.0  0.1   0:07.56 libvirtd           
>  1516 root      20   0  909m  17m 7164 S  0.0  0.1   0:07.81 libvirtd           
>  1517 root      20   0  909m  17m 7164 S  0.0  0.1   0:07.78 libvirtd           
>  1518 root      20   0  909m  17m 7164 S  0.0  0.1   0:07.55 libvirtd           
>  1519 root      20   0  909m  17m 7164 S  0.0  0.1   0:07.46 libvirtd           
>  1520 root      20   0  909m  17m 7164 S  0.0  0.1   0:01.35 libvirtd           
>  1521 root      20   0  909m  17m 7164 S  0.0  0.1   0:01.36 libvirtd           
>  1522 root      20   0  909m  17m 7164 S  0.0  0.1   0:01.37 libvirtd           
>  1523 root      20   0  909m  17m 7164 S  0.0  0.1   0:01.34 libvirtd           
>  1524 root      20   0  909m  17m 7164 S  0.0  0.1   0:01.30 libvirtd
> 
> On 26 Jul, 2012, at 8:51 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> 
>> On 07/26/2012 02:30 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:05:21AM +0800, T-Sinjon wrote:
>>>> maybe it's a libvirt problem  , since my nodes have used oVirt Node Hypervisor 2.2.2-2.2.fc16
>>>>
>>>> engine:
>>>> libvirt-0.9.11.4-3.fc17.x86_64
>>> This one is unused.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> node:
>>>> libvirt-0.9.6-4.fc16.x86_64
>>>>
>>>> storage:
>>>> No local fs, I have two Domain , one is using NFS fs, the other is GlusterFS mount by NFS.
>>>> Both have the problem
>>>>
>>>> [root at ovirt-node-sun-1 ~]# strace -p 1209 -e chown -ff
>>>> Process 1209 attached with 11 threads - interrupt to quit
>>>>
>>>> After start vm:
>>>> [pid  1518] --- {si_signo=SIGCHLD, si_code=CLD_EXITED, si_pid=19068, si_status=0, si_utime=1, si_stime=1} (Child exited) ---
>>>> [pid  1518] --- {si_signo=SIGCHLD, si_code=CLD_EXITED, si_pid=19069, si_status=0, si_utime=1, si_stime=1} (Child exited) ---
>>>> [pid  1518] --- {si_signo=SIGCHLD, si_code=CLD_EXITED, si_pid=19071, si_status=0, si_utime=1, si_stime=1} (Child exited) ---
>>>> [pid  1518] --- {si_signo=SIGCHLD, si_code=CLD_EXITED, si_pid=19072, si_status=0, si_utime=1, si_stime=1} (Child exited) ---
>>>> [pid  1518] --- {si_signo=SIGCHLD, si_code=CLD_EXITED, si_pid=19074, si_status=0, si_utime=1, si_stime=0} (Child exited) ---
>>>> [pid  1209] --- {si_signo=SIGCHLD, si_code=CLD_EXITED, si_pid=19080, si_status=0, si_utime=0, si_stime=0} (Child exited) ---
>>>> [pid  1518] chown("/rhev/data-center/3bdc6f14-bb92-4b0e-8db2-d0ba4c34f61d/b5078b10-a044-42c5-b270-8b81cd51ce35/images/979c2849-2587-4015-bad5-53159a11b6ed/38648b73-b0d4-4f2a-9f46-5b20613abb7a", 107, 107) = 0  
>>>>
>>>> After stop vm:
>>>> [pid  1209] chown("/rhev/data-center/3bdc6f14-bb92-4b0e-8db2-d0ba4c34f61d/b5078b10-a044-42c5-b270-8b81cd51ce35/images/979c2849-2587-4015-bad5-53159a11b6ed/38648b73-b0d4-4f2a-9f46-5b20613abb7a", 0, 0) = 0
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you are teasing us? ;-) who was pid 1209, vdsm or libvirtd?
>>>
>>
>> =)
>>
>> Unfortunately, you might be right, Dan. I think maybe it is libvirt and
>> it is hitting a bug, but the bug I know about does this only with
>> dynamic_ownership=1 (that's why I asked at first).
>>
>> To be sure, let's wait till we know who was 1518. Until then I'll try to
>> investigate ;)
>>
>> Martin
>