Virtualization - Mar 2021 - [PATCH V3 6/6] vDPA/ifcvf: verify mandatory feature bits for vDPA

On 2021/3/11 3:19 ??, Zhu, Lingshan wrote:
>
>
> On 3/11/2021 2:20 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/3/11 12:16 ??, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/11/2021 11:20 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2021/3/10 5:00 ??, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
>>>>> vDPA requres VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM as a must, this
commit
>>>>> examines this when set features.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu at
intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ? drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>>> ? drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h | 1 +
>>>>> ? drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c | 5 +++++
>>>>> ? 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.c 
>>>>> b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.c
>>>>> index ea6a78791c9b..58f47fdce385 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.c
>>>>> @@ -224,6 +224,14 @@ u64 ifcvf_get_features(struct ifcvf_hw
*hw)
>>>>> ????? return hw->hw_features;
>>>>> ? }
>>>>> ? +int ifcvf_verify_min_features(struct ifcvf_hw *hw)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +??? if (!(hw->hw_features &
BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM)))
>>>>> +??????? return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> ? void ifcvf_read_net_config(struct ifcvf_hw *hw, u64
offset,
>>>>> ???????????????? void *dst, int length)
>>>>> ? {
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h 
>>>>> b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h
>>>>> index dbb8c10aa3b1..91c5735d4dc9 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_base.h
>>>>> @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ void io_write64_twopart(u64 val, u32
*lo, u32
>>>>> *hi);
>>>>> ? void ifcvf_reset(struct ifcvf_hw *hw);
>>>>> ? u64 ifcvf_get_features(struct ifcvf_hw *hw);
>>>>> ? u64 ifcvf_get_hw_features(struct ifcvf_hw *hw);
>>>>> +int ifcvf_verify_min_features(struct ifcvf_hw *hw);
>>>>> ? u16 ifcvf_get_vq_state(struct ifcvf_hw *hw, u16 qid);
>>>>> ? int ifcvf_set_vq_state(struct ifcvf_hw *hw, u16 qid, u16
num);
>>>>> ? struct ifcvf_adapter *vf_to_adapter(struct ifcvf_hw *hw);
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c 
>>>>> b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c
>>>>> index 25fb9dfe23f0..f624f202447d 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/ifcvf/ifcvf_main.c
>>>>> @@ -179,6 +179,11 @@ static u64
ifcvf_vdpa_get_features(struct
>>>>> vdpa_device *vdpa_dev)
>>>>> ? static int ifcvf_vdpa_set_features(struct vdpa_device
*vdpa_dev,
>>>>> u64 features)
>>>>> ? {
>>>>> ????? struct ifcvf_hw *vf = vdpa_to_vf(vdpa_dev);
>>>>> +??? int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +??? ret = ifcvf_verify_min_features(vf);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So this validate device features instead of driver which is the
one
>>>> we really want to check?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Hi Jason,
>>>
>>> Here we check device feature bits to make sure the device support 
>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM. 
>>
>>
>> If you want to check device features, you need to do that during 
>> probe() and fail the probing if without the feature. But I think you 
>> won't ship cards without ACCESS_PLATFORM.
> Yes, there are no reasons ship a card without ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>
>>
>>> In get_features(),
>>> it will return a intersection of device features bit and driver 
>>> supported features bits(which includes ACCESS_PLATFORM).
>>> Other components like QEMU should not set features bits more than 
>>> this intersection of bits. so we can make sure if this
>>> ifcvf_verify_min_features() passed, both device and driver support 
>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting check driver feature bits in 
>>> ifcvf_verify_min_features() in the meantime as well?
>>
>>
>> So it really depends on your hardware. If you hardware can always 
>> offer ACCESS_PLATFORM, you just need to check driver features. This 
>> is how vdpa_sim and mlx5_vdpa work.
> Yes, we always support ACCESS_PLATFORM, so it is hard coded in the 
> macro IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES.

That's not what I read from the code:

 ??????? features = ifcvf_get_features(vf) & IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES;

> Now we check whether device support this feature bit as a double 
> conformation, are you suggesting we should check whether 
> ACCESS_PLATFORM & IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES
> in set_features() as well?

If we know device will always offer ACCESS_PLATFORM, there's no need to 
check it again. What we should check if whether driver set that, and if 
it doesn't we need to fail set_features(). I think there's little chance
that IFCVF can work when IOMMU_PLATFORM is not negotiated.

> I prefer check both device and IFCVF_SUPPORTED_FEATURES both, more 
> reliable.

So again, if you want to check device features, set_features() is not 
the proper place. We need to fail the probe in this case.

Thanks

>
> Thanks!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +??? if (ret)
>>>>> +??????? return ret;
>>>>> ? ????? vf->req_features = features;
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Virtualization mailing list
>>>> Virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org
>>>>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
>>>
>>
>