On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 9:15 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 06:00:48PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 6:06 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 01:43:11PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:02 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:13:31PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> > > > > > + static void *iova_to_va(int dev_fd, uint64_t iova, uint64_t *len)
> > > > > > + {
> > > > > > + int fd;
> > > > > > + void *addr;
> > > > > > + size_t size;
> > > > > > + struct vduse_iotlb_entry entry;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + entry.start = iova;
> > > > > > + entry.last = iova + 1;
> > > > >
> > > > > Why +1?
> > > > >
> > > > > I expected the request to include *len so that VDUSE can create a bounce
> > > > > buffer for the full iova range, if necessary.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The function is used to translate iova to va. And the *len is not
> > > > specified by the caller. Instead, it's used to tell the caller the
> > > > length of the contiguous iova region from the specified iova. And the
> > > > ioctl VDUSE_IOTLB_GET_FD will get the file descriptor to the first
> > > > overlapped iova region. So using iova + 1 should be enough here.
> > >
> > > Does the entry.last field have any purpose with VDUSE_IOTLB_GET_FD? I
> > > wonder why userspace needs to assign a value at all if it's always +1.
> > >
> >
> > If we need to get some iova regions in the specified range, we need
> > the entry.last field. For example, we can use [0, ULONG_MAX] to get
> > the first overlapped iova region which might be [4096, 8192]. But in
> > this function, we don't use VDUSE_IOTLB_GET_FD like this. We need to
> > get the iova region including the specified iova.
>
> I see, thanks for explaining!
>
> > > > > > + return addr + iova - entry.start;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +- VDUSE_DEV_GET_FEATURES: Get the negotiated features
> > > > >
> > > > > Are these VIRTIO feature bits? Please explain how feature negotiation
> > > > > works. There must be a way for userspace to report the device's
> > > > > supported feature bits to the kernel.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, these are VIRTIO feature bits. Userspace will specify the
> > > > device's supported feature bits when creating a new VDUSE device with
> > > > ioctl(VDUSE_CREATE_DEV).
> > >
> > > Can the VDUSE device influence feature bit negotiation? For example, if
> > > the VDUSE virtio-blk device does not implement discard/write-zeroes, how
> > > does QEMU or the guest find out about this?
> > >
> >
> > There is a "features" field in struct vduse_dev_config which is used
> > to do feature negotiation.
>
> This approach is more restrictive than required by the VIRTIO
> specification:
>
> "The device SHOULD accept any valid subset of features the driver
> accepts, otherwise it MUST fail to set the FEATURES_OK device status
> bit when the driver writes it."
>
> https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.1/cs01/virtio-v1.1-cs01.html#x1-130002
>
> The spec allows a device to reject certain subsets of features. For
> example, if feature B depends on feature A and can only be enabled when
> feature A is also enabled.
>
> From your description I think VDUSE would accept feature B without
> feature A since the device implementation has no opportunity to fail
> negotiation with custom logic.
>
Yes, we discussed it [1] before. So I'd like to re-introduce
SET_STATUS messages so that the userspace can fail feature negotiation
during setting FEATURES_OK status bit.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/6/28/1587
> Ideally VDUSE would send a SET_FEATURES message to userspace, allowing
> the device implementation full flexibility in which subsets of features
> to accept.
>
> This is a corner case. Many or maybe even all existing VIRTIO devices
> don't need this flexibility, but I want to point out this limitation in
> the VDUSE interface because it may cause issues in the future.
>
> > > > > > +- VDUSE_DEV_UPDATE_CONFIG: Update the configuration space and inject a config interrupt
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this mean the contents of the configuration space are cached by
> > > > > VDUSE?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but the kernel will also store the same contents.
> > > >
> > > > > The downside is that the userspace code cannot generate the
> > > > > contents on demand. Most devices doin't need to generate the contents
> > > > > on demand, so I think this is okay but I had expected a different
> > > > > interface:
> > > > >
> > > > > kernel->userspace VDUSE_DEV_GET_CONFIG
> > > > > userspace->kernel VDUSE_DEV_INJECT_CONFIG_IRQ
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The problem is how to handle the failure of VDUSE_DEV_GET_CONFIG. We
> > > > will need lots of modification of virtio codes to support that. So to
> > > > make it simple, we choose this way:
> > > >
> > > > userspace -> kernel VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG
> > > > userspace -> kernel VDUSE_DEV_INJECT_CONFIG_IRQ
> > > >
> > > > > I think you can leave it the way it is, but I wanted to mention this in
> > > > > case someone thinks it's important to support generating the contents of
> > > > > the configuration space on demand.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I didn't get you here. Can't VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG and
> > > > VDUSE_DEV_INJECT_CONFIG_IRQ achieve that?
> > >
> > > If the contents of the configuration space change continuously, then the
> > > VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG approach is inefficient and might have race
> > > conditions. For example, imagine a device where the driver can read a
> > > timer from the configuration space. I think the VIRTIO device model
> > > allows that although I'm not aware of any devices that do something like
> > > it today. The problem is that VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG would have to be
> > > called frequently to keep the timer value updated even though the guest
> > > driver probably isn't accessing it.
> > >
> >
> > OK, I get you now. Since the VIRTIO specification says "Device
> > configuration space is generally used for rarely-changing or
> > initialization-time parameters". I assume the VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG
> > ioctl should not be called frequently.
>
> The spec uses MUST and other terms to define the precise requirements.
> Here the language (especially the word "generally") is weaker and means
> there may be exceptions.
>
> Another type of access that doesn't work with the VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG
> approach is reads that have side-effects. For example, imagine a field
> containing an error code if the device encounters a problem unrelated to
> a specific virtqueue request. Reading from this field resets the error
> code to 0, saving the driver an extra configuration space write access
> and possibly race conditions. It isn't possible to implement those
> semantics suing VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG. It's another corner case, but it
> makes me think that the interface does not allow full VIRTIO semantics.
>
Agreed. I will use VDUSE_DEV_GET_CONFIG in the next version. And to
handle the message failure, I'm going to add a return value to
virtio_config_ops.get() and virtio_cread_* API so that the error can
be propagated to the virtio device driver. Then the virtio-blk device
driver can be modified to handle that.
Jason and Stefan, what do you think of this way?
> > > What's worse is that there might be race conditions where other
> > > driver->device operations are supposed to update the configuration space
> > > but VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG means that the VDUSE kernel code is caching an
> > > outdated copy.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure. Should the device and driver be able to access the same
> > fields concurrently?
>
> Yes. The VIRTIO spec has a generation count to handle multi-field
> accesses so that consistency can be ensured:
> https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.1/cs01/virtio-v1.1-cs01.html#x1-180004
>
I see.
Thanks,
Yongji
