Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] vhost: Add new UAPI to support change to task mode

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

 



On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 03:12:49PM +0800, Cindy Lu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 6:32 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 03:25:26PM +0800, Cindy Lu wrote:
>Add a new UAPI to enable setting the vhost device to task mode.
>The userspace application can use VHOST_SET_INHERIT_FROM_OWNER
>to configure the mode if necessary.
>This setting must be applied before VHOST_SET_OWNER, as the worker
>will be created in the VHOST_SET_OWNER function
>
>Signed-off-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>---
> drivers/vhost/vhost.c      | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> include/uapi/linux/vhost.h |  2 ++
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>index c17dc01febcc..70c793b63905 100644
>--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>@@ -2274,8 +2274,9 @@ long vhost_dev_ioctl(struct vhost_dev *d, unsigned int ioctl, void __user *argp)
> {
>       struct eventfd_ctx *ctx;
>       u64 p;
>-      long r;
>+      long r = 0;

I don't know if something is missing in this patch, but I am confused:

`r` is set few lines below...

>       int i, fd;
>+      bool inherit_owner;
>
>       /* If you are not the owner, you can become one */
>       if (ioctl == VHOST_SET_OWNER) {
...

        /* You must be the owner to do anything else */
        r = vhost_dev_check_owner(d);
        if (r)
                goto done;

So, why we are now initializing it to 0?

r = 0 mean return successfully here.
Therefore, in the case VHOST_SET_INHERIT_FROM_OWNER function, I don't
need to set it again and can simply return.
....
   if (vhost_dev_has_owner(d))
      break;
.....

Okay, but vhost_dev_check_owner() already set it to 0, so we can avoid that, no?

>@@ -2332,6 +2333,18 @@ long vhost_dev_ioctl(struct vhost_dev *d, unsigned int ioctl, void __user *argp)
>               if (ctx)
>                       eventfd_ctx_put(ctx);
>               break;
>+      case VHOST_SET_INHERIT_FROM_OWNER:
>+              /*inherit_owner can only be modified before owner is set*/
>+              if (vhost_dev_has_owner(d))

And here, how this check can be false, if at the beginning of the
function we call vhost_dev_check_owner()?

Maybe your intention was to add this code before the
`vhost_dev_check_owner()` call, so this should explain why initialize
`r` to 0, but I'm not sure.

Yes, in the function beginning, the code is
if (ioctl == VHOST_SET_OWNER) {
r = vhost_dev_set_owner(d);
goto done;
}
if the ioctl is not VHOST_SET_OWNER,  then the  code will not run the
function vhost_dev_set_owner.

Sorry, I meant vhost_dev_check_owner(), not vhost_dev_set_owner().

I'll try to explain again.

After applying this series we have this code:

long vhost_dev_ioctl(struct vhost_dev *d, unsigned int ioctl, void __user *argp)
{
	struct eventfd_ctx *ctx;
	u64 p;
	long r = 0;
	int i, fd;
	bool inherit_owner;

	/* If you are not the owner, you can become one */
	if (ioctl == VHOST_SET_OWNER) {
		r = vhost_dev_set_owner(d);
		goto done;
	}

	/* You must be the owner to do anything else */
	r = vhost_dev_check_owner(d);
	if (r)
		goto done;

	switch (ioctl) {
	...
    	case VHOST_SET_INHERIT_FROM_OWNER:
/*inherit_owner can only be modified before owner is * set*/
		if (vhost_dev_has_owner(d))
			break;

IIUC this check is always true, so we always call `break` because at
the beginning of this function we call vhost_dev_check_owner() which
if `dev->mm != current->mm` (so it can't be null I guess) jumps directly
into `done`, returning an error.

So I still don't understand in which condition we can run the code after
this check.

Thanks,
Stefano

		if (copy_from_user(&inherit_owner, argp,
				   sizeof(inherit_owner))) {
			r = -EFAULT;
			break;
		}
		d->inherit_owner = inherit_owner;
		break;


This ioctl is used by userspace applications, so we cannot be certain
of the type and sequence of their calls; therefore, I added this
check.

>+                      break;

Should we return an error (e.g. -EPERM) in this case?

sure,will add this back
thanks
Cindy
>+
>+              if (copy_from_user(&inherit_owner, argp,
>+                                 sizeof(inherit_owner))) {
>+                      r = -EFAULT;
>+                      break;
>+              }
>+              d->inherit_owner = inherit_owner;
>+              break;
>       default:
>               r = -ENOIOCTLCMD;
>               break;
>diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h b/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h
>index b95dd84eef2d..1e192038633d 100644
>--- a/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h
>+++ b/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h
>@@ -235,4 +235,6 @@
>  */
> #define VHOST_VDPA_GET_VRING_SIZE     _IOWR(VHOST_VIRTIO, 0x82,       \
>                                             struct vhost_vring_state)
>+

Please add a documentation here, this is UAPI, so the user should
know what this ioctl does based on the parameter.

Thanks,
Stefano

>+#define VHOST_SET_INHERIT_FROM_OWNER _IOW(VHOST_VIRTIO, 0x83, bool)
> #endif
>--
>2.45.0
>







[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