On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 7:23 PM Maxime Coquelin
<maxime.coquelin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> On 12/13/23 05:52, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 9:17 PM Maxime Coquelin
> > <maxime.coquelin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Virtio-net driver control queue implementation is not safe
> >> when used with VDUSE. If the VDUSE application does not
> >> reply to control queue messages, it currently ends up
> >> hanging the kernel thread sending this command.
> >>
> >> Some work is on-going to make the control queue
> >> implementation robust with VDUSE. Until it is completed,
> >> let's disable control virtqueue and features that depend on
> >> it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I wonder if it's better to fail instead of a mask as a start.
>
> I think it is better to use a mask and not fail, so that we can in the
> future use a recent VDUSE application with an older kernel.
It may confuse the userspace unless userspace can do post check after
CREATE_DEV.
And for blk we fail when WCE is set in feature_is_valid():
static bool features_is_valid(u64 features)
{
if (!(features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM)))
return false;
/* Now we only support read-only configuration space */
if (features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE))
return false;
return true;
}
Thanks
>
> Why would it be better to fail than negotiating?
>
> Thanks,
> Maxime
>
