On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:17:27AM +0200, Maciej Szymański wrote:
> > > > > > Hmm so we have this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if ((dev->features ^ features) & NETIF_F_GRO_HW) {
> > > > > > if (vi->xdp_enabled)
> > > > > > return -EBUSY;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if (features & NETIF_F_GRO_HW)
> > > > > > offloads = vi->guest_offloads_capable;
> > > > > > else
> > > > > > offloads = vi->guest_offloads_capable &
> > > > > > ~GUEST_OFFLOAD_GRO_HW_MASK;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > err = virtnet_set_guest_offloads(vi, offloads);
> > > > > > if (err)
> > > > > > return err;
> > > > > > vi->guest_offloads = offloads;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which I guess should have prevented virtnet_set_guest_offloads
> > > > > > from ever running.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From your description it sounds like you have observed this
> > > > > > in practice, right?
> > > > > >
> > > Yes. I have proprietary virtio-net device which advertises following
> > > guest offload features :
> > > - VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM
> > > - VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO4
> > > - VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO6
> > > - VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_UFO
> > >
> > > This feature set passes the condition in virtnet_set_features.
So why isn't dev->features equal to features?
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
