On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 02:56:20PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:26 PM Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/27/2022 2:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 03:47:35AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > >>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 10:53 PM
> > >>>
> > >>> On 7/27/2022 10:17 AM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > >>>>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 10:15 PM
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 7/26/2022 11:56 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > >>>>>>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 11:46 PM
> > >>>>>>>> When the user space which invokes netlink commands, detects that
> > >>>>> _MQ
> > >>>>>>> is not supported, hence it takes max_queue_pair = 1 by itself.
> > >>>>>>> I think the kernel module have all necessary information and it is
> > >>>>>>> the only one which have precise information of a device, so it
> > >>>>>>> should answer precisely than let the user space guess. The kernel
> > >>>>>>> module should be reliable than stay silent, leave the question to
> > >>>>>>> the user space
> > >>>>> tool.
> > >>>>>> Kernel is reliable. It doesn’t expose a config space field if the
> > >>>>>> field doesn’t
> > >>>>> exist regardless of field should have default or no default.
> > >>>>> so when you know it is one queue pair, you should answer one, not try
> > >>>>> to guess.
> > >>>>>> User space should not guess either. User space gets to see if _MQ
> > >>>>> present/not present. If _MQ present than get reliable data from kernel.
> > >>>>>> If _MQ not present, it means this device has one VQ pair.
> > >>>>> it is still a guess, right? And all user space tools implemented this
> > >>>>> feature need to guess
> > >>>> No. it is not a guess.
> > >>>> It is explicitly checking the _MQ feature and deriving the value.
> > >>>> The code you proposed will be present in the user space.
> > >>>> It will be uniform for _MQ and 10 other features that are present now and
> > >>> in the future.
> > >>> MQ and other features like RSS are different. If there is no _RSS_XX, there
> > >>> are no attributes like max_rss_key_size, and there is not a default value.
> > >>> But for MQ, we know it has to be 1 wihtout _MQ.
> > >> "we" = user space.
> > >> To keep the consistency among all the config space fields.
> > > Actually I looked and the code some more and I'm puzzled:
> > I can submit a fix in my next version patch for these issue.
> > >
> > >
> > > struct virtio_net_config config = {};
> > > u64 features;
> > > u16 val_u16;
> > >
> > > vdpa_get_config_unlocked(vdev, 0, &config, sizeof(config));
> > >
> > > if (nla_put(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MACADDR, sizeof(config.mac),
> > > config.mac))
> > > return -EMSGSIZE;
> > >
> > >
> > > Mac returned even without VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC
> > if no VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC, we should not nla_put
> > VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MAC_ADDR, the spec says the driver should generate
> > a random mac.
>
> It's probably too late to do this.
Not sure why.
> Most of the parents have this
> feature support, so probably not a real issue.
I guess not reporting MTU is not worse than failing initialization.
> > >
> > >
> > > val_u16 = le16_to_cpu(config.status);
> > > if (nla_put_u16(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_STATUS, val_u16))
> > > return -EMSGSIZE;
> > >
> > >
> > > status returned even without VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS
> > if no VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS, we should not nla_put
> > VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_STATUS, the spec says the driver should assume the
> > link is active.
>
> Somehow similar to F_MAC. But we can report if F_MAC is not negotiated.
>
>
> > >
> > > val_u16 = le16_to_cpu(config.mtu);
> > > if (nla_put_u16(msg, VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MTU, val_u16))
> > > return -EMSGSIZE;
> > >
> > >
> > > MTU returned even without VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU
> > same as above, the spec says config.mtu depends on VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, so
> > without this feature bit, we should not return MTU to the userspace.
>
> Not a big issue, we just need to make sure the parent can report a
> correct MTU here.
>
> Thanks
>
> >
> > Does these fix look good to you?
> >
> > And I think we may need your adjudication for the two issues:
> > (1) Shall we answer max_vq_paris = 1 when _MQ not exist, I know you have
> > agreed on this in a previous thread, its nice to clarify
> > (2) I think we should not re-use the netlink attr to report feature bits
> > of both the management device and the vDPA device,
> > this can lead to a new race condition, there are no locks(especially
> > distributed locks for kernel_space and user_space) in the nla_put
> > functions. Re-using the attr is some kind of breaking the netlink
> > lockless design.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zhu Lingshan
> > >
> > >
> > > What's going on here?
> > >
> > >
> >
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
