Re: Re: [PATCH] vhost-vdpa: fail enabling virtqueue in certain conditions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:27:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 10:52 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK is not negotiated, we expect
the driver to enable virtqueue before setting DRIVER_OK. If the driver
tries anyway, better to fail right away as soon as we get the ioctl.
Let's also update the documentation to make it clearer.

We had a problem in QEMU for not meeting this requirement, see

Maybe it's better to only enable cvq when the backend supports
VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK. Eugenio, any comment on this?

Fixes: 9f09fd6171fe ("vdpa: accept VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK backend feature")
Cc: eperezma@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx>
 include/uapi/linux/vhost_types.h | 3 ++-
 drivers/vhost/vdpa.c             | 4 ++++
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vhost_types.h b/include/uapi/linux/vhost_types.h
index d7656908f730..5df49b6021a7 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/vhost_types.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/vhost_types.h
@@ -182,7 +182,8 @@ struct vhost_vdpa_iova_range {
 /* Device can be resumed */
 /* Device supports the driver enabling virtqueues both before and after
+ * DRIVER_OK. If this feature is not negotiated, the virtqueues must be
+ * enabled before setting DRIVER_OK.
 /* Device may expose the virtqueue's descriptor area, driver area and
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
index bc4a51e4638b..1fba305ba8c1 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c
@@ -651,6 +651,10 @@ static long vhost_vdpa_vring_ioctl(struct vhost_vdpa *v, unsigned int cmd,
                if (copy_from_user(&s, argp, sizeof(s)))
                        return -EFAULT;
+               if (!vhost_backend_has_feature(vq,
+                       VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK) &&
+                   (ops->get_status(vdpa) & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK))
+                       return -EINVAL;

As discussed, without VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK, we don't
know if parents can do vq_ready after driver_ok.

So maybe we need to keep this behaviour to unbreak some "legacy" userspace?

I'm not sure it's a good idea, since "legacy" userspace are currently broken if used with VDUSE device. So we need to fix userspace in any case, and IMHO is better if we start to return an error, so the user understands what went wrong, because the problem in QEMU took us quite some time to figure out that we couldn't enable vq after DRIVER_OK.

Since userspace is unable to understand if a vhost-vdpa device is VDUSE or not, I think we have only 2 options either merge this patch or fix VDUSE somehow. But the last one I think is more complicated/intrusive.


For example ifcvf did:

static void ifcvf_vdpa_set_vq_ready(struct vdpa_device *vdpa_dev,
                                   u16 qid, bool ready)
 struct ifcvf_hw *vf = vdpa_to_vf(vdpa_dev);

       ifcvf_set_vq_ready(vf, qid, ready);

And it did:

void ifcvf_set_vq_ready(struct ifcvf_hw *hw, u16 qid, bool ready)
       struct virtio_pci_common_cfg __iomem *cfg = hw->common_cfg;

       vp_iowrite16(qid, &cfg->queue_select);
       vp_iowrite16(ready, &cfg->queue_enable);

Though it didn't advertise VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK?

Adding LingShan for more thought.


                ops->set_vq_ready(vdpa, idx, s.num);
                return 0;

[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux