On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 04:40:33PM +0100, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 3:13 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:When we initialize vringh, we should pass the features and the number of elements in the virtqueue negotiated with the driver, otherwise operations with vringh may fail. This was discovered in a case where the driver sets a number of elements in the virtqueue different from the value returned by .get_vq_num_max(). In vdpasim_vq_reset() is safe to initialize the vringh with default values, since the virtqueue will not be used until vdpasim_queue_ready() is called again. Fixes: 2c53d0f64c06 ("vdpasim: vDPA device simulator") Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c index b071f0d842fb..b20689f8fe89 100644 --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c @@ -67,8 +67,7 @@ static void vdpasim_queue_ready(struct vdpasim *vdpasim, unsigned int idx) { struct vdpasim_virtqueue *vq = &vdpasim->vqs[idx]; - vringh_init_iotlb(&vq->vring, vdpasim->dev_attr.supported_features, - VDPASIM_QUEUE_MAX, false, + vringh_init_iotlb(&vq->vring, vdpasim->features, vq->num, false, (struct vring_desc *)(uintptr_t)vq->desc_addr, (struct vring_avail *) (uintptr_t)vq->driver_addr, -- 2.38.1I think this is definitely an improvement, but I'd say we should go a step further and rename VDPASIM_QUEUE_MAX to VDPASIM_QUEUE_DEFAULT. As you point out in the patch message it is not a max anymore.
I'm not sure about renaming since it is the value returned by vdpasim_get_vq_num_max, so IMHO the _MAX suffix is fine. But I admit that initially I didn't understand whether it's the maximum number of queues or elements, so maybe VDPASIM_VQ_NUM_MAX is better.
Another thing to note is that we don't have a way to report that userspace indicated a bad value for queue length. With the current code vringh will not initialize at all if I'm not wrong, so we should prevent userspace to put a bad num.
Right!
Ideally, we should repeat the tests of vring_init_kern at vdpasim_set_vq_num. We could either call it with NULL vring addresses to check for -EINVAL, or simply repeat the conditional (!num || num > 0xffff || (num & (num - 1))). I'd say the first one is better to not go out of sync.
Or we could do the check in vdpasim_set_vq_ready() and set it not ready if the vq_num is wrong.
All of that can be done on top anyway, so for this patch: Acked-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for the review, Stefano _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
