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

[T-Sinjon]

yeah, everything went ok after restart libvirtd

I have do a test :
Install a new node, the problem always there (any possible  that "dynamic_ownership=0 # by vdsm"  has done after libvirtd starting??)

On 30 Jul, 2012, at 10:46 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:

> 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
>> 
>