Hi Pratyush,
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 15:50:45 +0000 Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 25/08/22 04:15PM, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > Commit e94c6101e151 ("xen-blkback: Apply 'feature_persistent' parameter
> > when connect") made blkback to advertise its support of the persistent
> > grants feature only if the user sets the 'feature_persistent' parameter
> > of the driver and the frontend advertised its support of the feature.
> > However, following commit 402c43ea6b34 ("xen-blkfront: Apply
> > 'feature_persistent' parameter when connect") made the blkfront to work
> > in the same way. That is, blkfront also advertises its support of the
> > persistent grants feature only if the user sets the 'feature_persistent'
> > parameter of the driver and the backend advertised its support of the
> > feature.
> >
> > Hence blkback and blkfront will never advertise their support of the
> > feature but wait until the other advertises the support, even though
> > users set the 'feature_persistent' parameters of the drivers. As a
> > result, the persistent grants feature is disabled always regardless of
> > the 'feature_persistent' values[1].
> >
> > The problem comes from the misuse of the semantic of the advertisement
> > of the feature. The advertisement of the feature should means only
> > availability of the feature not the decision for using the feature.
> > However, current behavior is working in the wrong way.
> >
> > This commit fixes the issue by making the blkfront advertises its
> > support of the feature as user requested via 'feature_persistent'
> > parameter regardless of the otherend's support of the feature.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/bd818aba-4857-bc07-dc8a-e9b2f8c5f7cd@xxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Fixes: 402c43ea6b34 ("xen-blkfront: Apply 'feature_persistent' parameter when connect")
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.10.x
> > Reported-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Suggested-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c | 8 ++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> > index 8e56e69fb4c4..dfae08115450 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> > @@ -213,6 +213,9 @@ struct blkfront_info
> > unsigned int feature_fua:1;
> > unsigned int feature_discard:1;
> > unsigned int feature_secdiscard:1;
> > + /* Connect-time cached feature_persistent parameter */
> > + unsigned int feature_persistent_parm:1;
> > + /* Persistent grants feature negotiation result */
> > unsigned int feature_persistent:1;
> > unsigned int bounce:1;
> > unsigned int discard_granularity;
> > @@ -1848,7 +1851,7 @@ static int talk_to_blkback(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> > goto abort_transaction;
> > }
> > err = xenbus_printf(xbt, dev->nodename, "feature-persistent", "%u",
> > - info->feature_persistent);
> > + info->feature_persistent_parm);
> > if (err)
> > dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> > "writing persistent grants feature to xenbus");
> > @@ -2281,7 +2284,8 @@ static void blkfront_gather_backend_features(struct blkfront_info *info)
> > if (xenbus_read_unsigned(info->xbdev->otherend, "feature-discard", 0))
> > blkfront_setup_discard(info);
> >
> > - if (feature_persistent)
> > + info->feature_persistent_parm = feature_persistent;
>
> Same question as before. Why not just use feature_persistent directly?
Same answer as before, due to the possible race[1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20200922111259.GJ19254@Air-de-Roger/
>
> > + if (info->feature_persistent_parm)
> > info->feature_persistent =
> > !!xenbus_read_unsigned(info->xbdev->otherend,
> > "feature-persistent", 0);
>
> Aside: IMO this would look nicer as below:
>
> info->feature_persistent = feature_persistent && !!xenbus_read_unsigned();
Agreed, that would also make the code more consistent with the blkback side
code.
I would make the change in the next version of this patchset.
Thanks,
SJ
