[PATCH net] virtio-net: reject small vring sizes

Alvaro Karsz
2023-04-25T11:11:54Z

> > So, let's add some funky flags in virtio device to block out
> > features, have core compare these before and after,
> > detect change, reset and retry?
>
> In the virtnet case, we'll decide which features to block based on the
ring size.
> 2 < ring < MAX_FRAGS + 2  -> BLOCK GRO + MRG_RXBUF
> ring < 2  -> BLOCK GRO + MRG_RXBUF + CTRL_VQ
>
> So we'll need a new virtio callback instead of flags.
>
> Furthermore, other virtio drivers may decide which features to block based
on parameters different than ring size (I don't have a good example at the
moment).
> So maybe we should leave it to the driver to handle (during probe), >
and offer a virtio core function to re-negotiate the features?
>
> In the solution I'm working on, I expose a new virtio core function
that resets the device and renegotiates the received features.
> + A new virtio_config_ops callback peek_vqs_len to peek at the VQ lengths
before calling find_vqs. (The callback must be called after the features
negotiation)
>
> So, the flow is something like:
>
> * Super early in virtnet probe, we peek at the VQ lengths and decide if we
are
>    using small vrings, if so, we reset and renegotiate the features.
> * We continue normally and create the VQs.
> * We check if the created rings are small.
>    If they are and some blocked features were negotiated anyway (may occur
if
>    the re-negotiation fails, or if the transport has no implementation for
>    peek_vqs_len), we fail probe.

Small fix: if the re-negotiation fails, we fail probe immediately.
The only way to negotiate blocked features with a small vring is if the
transport has no implementation for peek_vqs_len.

>    If the ring is small and the features are ok, we mark the virtnet device
as
>    vring_small and fixup some variables.
>
>
> peek_vqs_len is needed because we must know the VQ length before calling
init_vqs.
>
> During virtnet_find_vqs we check the following:
> vi->has_cvq
> vi->big_packets
> vi->mergeable_rx_bufs
>
> But these will change if the ring is small..
>
> (Of course, another solution will be to re-negotiate features after
init_vqs, but this will make a big mess, tons of things to clean and
reconfigure)
>
>
> The 2 < ring < MAX_FRAGS + 2 part is ready, I have tested a few cases
and it is working.
>
> I'm considering splitting the effort into 2 series.
> A 2 < ring < MAX_FRAGS + 2  series, and a follow up series with the
ring < 2 case.
>
> I'm also thinking about sending the first series as an RFC soon, so it
will be more broadly tested.
>
> What do you think?
>