Virtualization - Oct 2022 - [PATCH V2 2/3] vdpa_sim_net: support feature provisioning

? 2022/10/7 08:35, Si-Wei Liu ??:
>
>
> On 9/28/2022 9:55 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 5:41 PM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu at
oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/26/2022 8:59 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 9:02 AM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu at
oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/26/2022 12:11 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 4:01 AM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu at
oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/21/2022 7:43 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch implements features provisioning for vdpa_sim_net.
>>>
>>> 1) validating the provisioned features to be a subset of the parent
>>> ???? features.
>>> 2) clearing the features that is not wanted by the userspace
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> # vdpa mgmtdev show
>>> vdpasim_net:
>>> ??? supported_classes net
>>> ??? max_supported_vqs 3
>>> ??? dev_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT VERSION_1
>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>
>>> Sighs, not to blame any one and it's perhaps too late, but this
>>> "dev_features" attr in "mgmtdev show" command
output should have been
>>> called "supported_features" in the first place.
>>>
>>> Not sure I get this, but I guess this is the negotiated features 
>>> actually.
>>>
>>> Actually no, that is why I said the name is a bit confusing and 
>>> "supported_features" might sound better.
>>>
>>> You're right, it's an mgmtdev show actually.
>>>
>>> This attribute in the parent device (mgmtdev) denotes the real 
>>> device capability for what virtio features can be supported by the 
>>> parent device. Any unprivileged user can check into this field to 
>>> know parent device's capability without having to create a
child
>>> vDPA device at all. The features that child vDPA device may support
>>> should be a subset of, or at most up to what the parent device 
>>> offers. For e.g. the vdpa device dev1 you created below can expose 
>>> less or equal device_features bit than 0x308820028 (MTU MAC CTRL_VQ
>>> CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT VERSION_1 ACCESS_PLATFORM), but
shouldn't
>>> be no more than what the parent device can actually support.
>>>
>>> Yes, I didn't see anything wrong with "dev_features",
>>>
>>> Yep, it didn't appear to me anything wrong either at first
sight,
>>> then I gave my R-b on the series introduced this attribute. But
it's
>>> not a perfect name, either, on the other hand. Parav later pointed 
>>> out that the corresponding enum definition for this attribute
should
>>> follow pre-existing naming convention that we should perhaps do 
>>>
s/VDPA_ATTR_DEV_SUPPORTED_FEATURES/VDPA_ATTR_MGMTDEV_SUPPORTED_FEATURES/
>>> to get it renamed, as this is a mgmtdev level attribute, which I 
>>> agree. Now that with the upcoming "device_features"
attribute (vdpa
>>> dev level) from this series, it's subject to another confusions
>>> between these two similar names, but actually would represent
things
>>> at different level. While all other attributes in "mgmtdev dev
show"
>>> seem to be aligned with the "supported_" prefix, e.g. 
>>> supported_classes, max_supported_vqs, from which I think the stance
>>> of device is already implied through "mgmtdev" in the
command. For
>>> the perspective of clarify and easy distinction, 
>>> "supported_features" seems to be a better name than
"dev_features".
>> See another reply, I think I get your point,
>>
>> 1) VDPA_ATTR_VDPA_DEV_SUPPORTED_FEATURES (lingshan's series) and
>> VDPA_ATTR_VDPA_DEV_FEATURES should be equivalent and unified to a
>> single attribute.
>> 2) A better name to "supported_features" should be fine,
patches are
>> welcomed
>>
>>> ? it aligns to the
>>> virtio spec which means the features could be used to create a vdpa
>>> device. But if everyone agree on the renaming, I'm fine.
>>>
>>> Never mind, if it's late don't have to bother.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think Ling Shan is working on reporting both negotiated features
>>> with the device features.
>>>
>>> Does it imply this series is connected to another work in parallel?
>>> Is it possible to add a reference in the cover letter?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure, I remember Ling Shan did some work to not block
the
>>> config show in this commit:
>>>
>>> commit a34bed37fc9d3da319bb75dfbf02a7d3e95e12de
>>> Author: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu at intel.com>
>>> Date:?? Fri Jul 22 19:53:07 2022 +0800
>>>
>>> ???? vDPA: !FEATURES_OK should not block querying device config
space
>>>
>>> We need some changes in the vdpa tool to show device_features
>>> unconditionally in the "dev config show" command.
>>>
>>> That's true, I think I ever pointed it out to Lingshan before,
that
>>> it's not needed to bother exposing those config space fields in
"dev
>>> config show" output, if the only intent is for live migration
of
>>> device features between nodes. For vDPA live migration, what cares 
>>> most is those configuration parameters specified on vdpa creation, 
>>> and userspace VMM (QEMU) is supposed to take care of saving and 
>>> restoring live device states. I think it's easier to extend
"vdpa
>>> dev show" output to include device_features and other config
params
>>> as well, rather than count on validity of various config space
fields.
>> Probably, but for the migration it's more about the ability of the
>> mgmtdev instead of the vDPA device itself I think.
> If picking the appropriate device for migration is what it is 
> concerned, it's subject to the capability that mgmtdev offers.
That's
> true, for sure.
>
> On the other hand, mgmt software would also need to take care of 
> reconstructing the destination device with the same configuration as 
> that at the source side. For example, a mgmtdev on source supports 
> features A, B, C, D,? and destination mgmtdev supports features B, C, 
> D, E. When vdpa device on the source is initially created with 
> features B and C but without feature D (noted: creation with a subset 
> of mgmtdev features was already supported before, and this series just 
> makes it more explicit), the mgmt software is supposed to equally 
> create a device with features B and C on dest, even though the 
> destination may support feature D that the mgmtdev on both sides can 
> support. My point is, we should have some flexibility on the mgmt 
> software implementation that allows the mgmt software to easily tell 
> apart the exact features (i.e. B and C in the above example) and the 
> exact configuration a specific vdpa device was originally created 
> with, via some simple query command. Having mgmt software to remember 
> the vdpa creation args could work, but on the other hand it'd be nice 
> to allow lightweight software implementation without having to persist 
> the list of vdpa args and make vdpa tool more self-contained.
>
> I will post a patch (series) shortly to demonstrate this idea. 
> Basically, there's no actual need to mess around with those config 
> space values for live migration. It was not built for that purpose.

Ok, let's see.

>
>>
>>>
https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/454bdf1b-daa1-aa67-2b8c-bc15351c1851 at
oracle.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not just insufficient, but sometimes is incorrect to
create
>>> vDPA device using the config space fields.? For instance, MAC 
>>> address in config space can be changed temporarily (until device 
>>> reset) via ctrl_vq VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_MAC_ADDR_SET command. It's 
>>> incorrect to create vDPA using the MAC address shown in the config 
>>> space.
>> I think it's still a must for create the mac with the exact mac
address:
>>
>> 1) VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_MAC is not a must
>> 2) there's no way for us to know whether or not the mac has been
changed
> Noted I think here we are still talking about VERSION_1 device which 
> is spec conforming. So far as I understand the spec, if the 
> VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_MAC feature is not negotiated, there's no way for 
> driver to change the default MAC address.

For 1.0 device yes.

>
> Even if we want to simulate or support a legacy device model, when MAC 
> address is changed by legacy driver somehow, QEMU should be able to 
> detect this and issue a vdpa ioctl call to change the MAC address 
> filter underneath. I don't see that it ever happens in today's
code,
> so I presume the only possibility this may work is that the specific 
> vDPA device may have an internal learning bridge that adapts to what 
> MAC address the driver actually sends. 

This is not true AFAIK. E.g when switchdev is enabled for mlx5 parent.

> In this case, since the device doesn't care, recreate with the MAC in 
> use is not needed, and technically it is even incorrect. In data 
> centers or cloud environment, MAC address is usually controlled and 
> managed by some central entity/service. If a? driver can dominate the 
> MAC address in use by deliberately overriding the default MAC and 
> bypassing the central rule via live migration, that'd be a more severe 
> security issue to address in the first place.

There used to be a discussion to allow trust and spoof check as what 
SR-IOV did. For safety, we can filter out CTRL_MAC right now. But I 
think it's something out of the scope for this discussion.

But I still don't get what's wrong with have the same mac address 
provisioned in both src and dst. It is the model used currently (e.g 
libvirt will guarantee the same mac in both src and dst). The mgmt 
software can then guarantee that the mac was fetched from the 
centralized manager. And we can't depend purely on the migration since 
in some case it can't work: e.g src MTU 4000 dst MTU 1500, migration 
will fail and mgmt stack need to provision an 4000 to work.

>
>> 3) migration code can restore the mac during restore
>>
>> So exactly the same mac address is still required. (This is the same
>> as we are doing for live migration on software virtio)
>>
>>> ? Another example, if the source vDPA device has MAC address table 
>>> size limit of 100, then in the destination we should pick parent 
>>> device with size limit no smaller than that, and create vDPA on 
>>> remote node matching the exact same size. There's nothing
config
>>> space field can assist here.
>> Two ways:
>>
>> 1) mgmtdev should show the mac table size so mgmt layer can provision
>> the mac table size
>> 2) If the mac table exceeds what is supported in the destination, it
>> needs to enable the all uni in this case.
> Yep, so no field in the config space can help with these two 
> solutions, right? MAC table size is not showing up there. Whether the 
> parent device supports ALLUNI via VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_RX is not there, 
> either. (showing them in the 'vdpa mgmtdev show' output is the
right
> thing IMHO).
>
>>
>>> One example further, in the future, if we are going to introduce 
>>> mandatory feature (for e.g. VERSION_1, RING_PACKED) that the device
>>> is unable to support the opposite case, the destination device 
>>> should be created with equally same mandatory device features,
which
>>> only vDPA creation parameters should matter. While I can't
think of
>>> a case that the mgmt software or live migration tool would have to 
>>> count on config space fields only.
>> Yes, in this case we need to introduce new netlink attributes for both
>> getting mandatory features from the management device and provisioning
>> those manadating features.
> True, management device level thing again, not related to anything in 
> the config space.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) provision vDPA device with all features that are supported by
the
>>> ???? net simulator
>>>
>>> # vdpa dev add name dev1 mgmtdev vdpasim_net
>>> # vdpa dev config show
>>> dev1: mac 00:00:00:00:00:00 link up link_announce false mtu 1500
>>> ??? negotiated_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR VERSION_1 
>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>
>>> Maybe not in this patch, but for completeness for the whole series,
>>> could we also add device_features to the output?
>>>
>>> Lingshan, could you please share your thoughts or patch on this?
>>>
>>> Noted here the device_features argument specified during vdpa 
>>> creation is introduced by this series itself, it somehow slightly 
>>> changed the original semantics of what device_features used to be.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I get this, we don't support device_features
in the past
>>> and it is used to provision device features to the vDPA device
which
>>> seems to be fine.
>>>
>>> Before this change, only look at the dev_features in "mgmtdev
show"
>>> and remember creation parameters is sufficient to get to all needed
>>> info for creating vDPA at destination.
>> Note that even with the same vendor, mgmtdev may support different 
>> features.
>>
>>> After this change, dev_features in "mgmtdev show" becomes
less
>>> relevant, as it would need to remember vdpa creation parameters
plus
>>> the device_features attribute. While this series allows cross
vendor
>>> live migration, it would complicate the implementation of mgmt 
>>> software, on the other hand.
>> To allow cross vendor live migration I couldn't find a better way.
> The idea itself is great, I think, though the CLI interface may have 
> some space for improvement. For example, user has to supply the 
> heximal value consisting of each feature bit, which is a bit 
> challenging for normal users who are not super familiar with each 
> virtio feature. On the other hand, there could be ambiguity against 
> other vdpa create option, e.g. users may do "vdpa dev add name vdpa0 
> mgmtdev ... mtu 1500 device_features 0x300020000" (no F_MTU feature 
> bit in device_features) that needs special validation in the code.

We can accept e.g XML in the future I think.

>
> How about we follow the CPU flags model or QEMU virtio-net-pci args to 
> define property representing each feature bit? I think the current 
> convention for each "vdpa dev add" option implies that the 
> corresponding feature bit will be enabled once specified in creation. 
> Similarly we can introduce additional option representing each feature 
> bit, along with a new features_default property denoting the initial 
> value for device_feature bits:
>
> # vdpa mgmtdev show
> vdpasim_net:
> ? supported_classes net
> ? max_supported_vqs 3
> ? dev_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT VERSION_1 
> ACCESS_PLATFORM
> # vdpa dev add name dev1 mgmtdev vdpasim_net features_default off \
> ????????????????????????? csum on guest_csum on mtu 2000 ctrl_vq on 
> version1 on access_platform on
> # vdpa dev show
> dev1: type network mgmtdev vdpasim_net vendor_id 0 max_vqs 3 
> max_vq_size 256
> ?? features_default off mtu 2000
> ?? device_features CSUM GUEST_CSUM MTU CTRL_VQ VERSION_1 ACCESS_PLATFORM
>
> If the features_default property is left unspecified or with the 
> "inherited" value, it would just inherit all of the
supported_features
> from mgmtdev (which is already the case of today).
>
> # vdpa dev add name dev1 mgmtdev vdpasim_net features_default inherited
> # vdpa dev show
> dev1: type network mgmtdev vdpasim_net vendor_id 0 max_vqs 3 
> max_vq_size 256
> ? features_default inherited
> ? device_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT VERSION_1 
> ACCESS_PLATFORM
>
> I can definitely help implement this model if you find it fits.

I prefer XML since it could be reused and we may exceed 64bit limitation 
in the future. But we can hear from others.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When simply look at the "vdpa dev config show" output, I
cannot really
>>> tell the actual device_features that was used in vdpa creation. For
>>> e.g.
>>> there is a missing feature ANY_LAYOUT from negotiated_features
compared
>>> with supported_features in mgmtdev, but the orchestration software
>>> couldn't tell if the vdpa device on destination host should be
created
>>> with or without the ANY_LAYOUT feature.
>>>
>>> I think VERSION_1 implies ANY_LAYOUT.
>>>
>>> Right, ANY_LAYOUT is a bad example. A good example might be that, I
>>> knew the parent mgmtdev on migration source node supports 
>>> CTRL_MAC_ADDR, but I don't find it in negotiated_features.
>>>
>>> I think we should use the features that we got from "mgmtdev
show"
>>> instead of "negotiated features".
>>>
>>> That was how it's supposed to work previously, but with this
series,
>>> I think the newly introduced device_features will be needed instead
>>> of the one in "mgmtdev show".
>> Just to clarify, there won't be a device_features in mgmtdev show
>> since it is device specific, each individual device can have its own
>> device features which are subset of what is supported by the mgmtdev.
> Yep.
>>
>>>
>>> On the migration destination node, the parent device does support 
>>> all features as the source offers, including CTRL_MAC_ADDR. What 
>>> device features you would expect the mgmt software to create 
>>> destination vdpa device with, if not otherwise requiring mgmt 
>>> software to remember all the arguments on device creation?
>> So the provisioning in the destination should use exactly the same
>> device_feautres as what the vdpa device has in the source. But before
>> this, management layer should guarantee to provision a vDPA device
>> whose device_features can be supported on the destination in order to
>> allow live migration.
> Exactly.
>>
>>> So in this example, we need use "dev_features" so we get
exact the
>>> same features after and operation as either src or dst.
>>>
>>> If the device_features vDPA created with at the source doesn't 
>>> include CTRL_MAC_ADDR even though parent supports it, then the vDPA
>>> to be created at the destination shouldn't come with
CTRL_MAC_ADDR
>>> either, regardless of whether or not CTRL_MAC_ADDR is present in 
>>> destination "mgmtdev show".
>>>
>>> However, if just taking look at negotiated_features, some mgmt 
>>> software implementations which don't persist the creation
parameters
>>> can't get the device features a certain vDPA device at the
source
>>> node was created with.
>>>
>>>
>>> SOURCE# vdpa mgmtdev show
>>> vdpasim_net:
>>> ??? supported_classes net
>>> ??? max_supported_vqs 3
>>> ??? dev_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT VERSION_1
>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>> SOURCE# vdpa dev config show
>>> dev1: mac 00:00:00:00:00:00 link up link_announce false mtu 1500
>>> ??? negotiated_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ VERSION_1 ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>
>>> DESTINATION# vdpa mgmtdev show
>>> vdpasim_net:
>>> ??? supported_classes net
>>> ??? max_supported_vqs 3
>>> ??? dev_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT VERSION_1
>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>
>>> ? But it should be sufficient to
>>> use features_src & feature_dst in this case. Actually, it
should work
>>> similar as to the cpu flags, the management software should
introduce
>>> the concept of cluster which means the maximal set of common
features
>>> is calculated and provisioned during device creation to allow
>>> migration among the nodes inside the cluster.
>>>
>>> Yes, this is one way mgmt software may implement, but I am not sure
>>> if it's the only way. For e.g. for cpu flags, mgmt software can
>>> infer the guest cpus features in use from all qemu command line 
>>> arguments and host cpu features/capability, which doesn't need
to
>>> remember creation arguments and is easy to recover from failure 
>>> without having to make the VM config persistent in data store. I 
>>> thought it would be great if vdpa CLI design could offer the same.
>>>
>>> One minor difference is that we have cpu model abstraction, so we
can
>>> have things like:
>>>
>>> ./qemu-system-x86_64 -cpu EPYC
>>>
>>> Which implies the cpu features/flags where vDPA doesn't have.
But
>>> consider it's just a 64bit (or 128 in the future), it
doesn't seems to
>>> be too complex for the management to know, we probably need to
start
>>> from this and then we can try to introduce some generation/model
after
>>> it is agreed on most of the vendors.
>>>
>>> What you refer to is the so-called named model for CPU flags. I 
>>> think it's a good addition to have some generation or named
model
>>> defined for vDPA. But I don't get the point for how it relates
to
>>> exposing the actual value of device features? Are you saying in
this
>>> case you'd rather expose the model name than the actual value
of
>>> feature bits? Well, I think we can expose both in different fields 
>>> when there's really such a need.
>> It's something like:
>>
>> vdpa dev add name dev1 mgmtdev vdpasim_net device_features 
>> VDPA_NET_MODEL_1
>>
>> and VDPA_NET_MODEL_1 implies some feature sets.
>
> Not sure if this could be very useful for virtio devices, given we 
> don't have a determined set of virtio features unlike CPU 
> generation/model, but I think even with the features_default property 
> we can still achieve that.
>
> -Siwei

Yes.

Thanks

>
>>
>>> BTW with regard to the cpu model in mgmt software implementation, 
>>> the one implemented in libvirt is a mixed "Host model"
[1] with
>>> taking advantage of QEMU named model and exposing additional 
>>> individual CPU features that gets close to what host CPU offers.
>> So creating vDPA device without "device_features" is somehow
the host
>> model, it will have all features that is supported by the parent.
>>
>>> I think this implies that mgmt software should have to understand 
>>> what the model name really means in terms of individual CPU 
>>> features, so having feature bit value exposed will just do more
help
>>> if vDPA goes the same way.
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Siwei
>>>
>>> [1] 
>>>
https://qemu-project.gitlab.io/qemu/system/qemu-cpu-models.html#two-ways-to-configure-cpu-models-with-qemu-kvm
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Siwei
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Siwei
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) provision vDPA device with a subset of the features
>>>
>>> # vdpa dev add name dev1 mgmtdev vdpasim_net device_features 
>>> 0x300020000
>>> # vdpa dev config show
>>> dev1: mac 00:00:00:00:00:00 link up link_announce false mtu 1500
>>> ??? negotiated_features CTRL_VQ VERSION_1 ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Eli Cohen <elic at nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> ?? drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim_net.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>> ?? 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim_net.c 
>>> b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim_net.c
>>> index 886449e88502..a9ba02be378b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim_net.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim_net.c
>>> @@ -254,6 +254,14 @@ static int vdpasim_net_dev_add(struct 
>>> vdpa_mgmt_dev *mdev, const char *name,
>>> ?????? dev_attr.work_fn = vdpasim_net_work;
>>> ?????? dev_attr.buffer_size = PAGE_SIZE;
>>>
>>> +???? if (config->mask & BIT_ULL(VDPA_ATTR_DEV_FEATURES)) {
>>> +???????????? if (config->device_features &
>>> +???????????????? ~dev_attr.supported_features)
>>> +???????????????????? return -EINVAL;
>>> +???????????? dev_attr.supported_features &>>>
+????????????????????? config->device_features;
>>> +???? }
>>> +
>>> ?????? simdev = vdpasim_create(&dev_attr);
>>> ?????? if (IS_ERR(simdev))
>>> ?????????????? return PTR_ERR(simdev);
>>> @@ -294,7 +302,8 @@ static struct vdpa_mgmt_dev mgmt_dev = {
>>> ?????? .id_table = id_table,
>>> ?????? .ops = &vdpasim_net_mgmtdev_ops,
>>> ?????? .config_attr_mask = (1 <<
VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MACADDR |
>>> -????????????????????????? 1 << VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MTU),
>>> +????????????????????????? 1 << VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MTU |
>>> +????????????????????????? 1 << VDPA_ATTR_DEV_FEATURES),
>>> ?????? .max_supported_vqs = VDPASIM_NET_VQ_NUM,
>>> ?????? .supported_features = VDPASIM_NET_FEATURES,
>>> ?? };
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

On 10/13/2022 12:10 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> ? 2022/10/7 08:35, Si-Wei Liu ??:
>>
>>
>> On 9/28/2022 9:55 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 5:41 PM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu at
oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/26/2022 8:59 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 9:02 AM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu at
oracle.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/26/2022 12:11 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 4:01 AM Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu at
oracle.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/21/2022 7:43 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This patch implements features provisioning for vdpa_sim_net.
>>>>
>>>> 1) validating the provisioned features to be a subset of the
parent
>>>> ???? features.
>>>> 2) clearing the features that is not wanted by the userspace
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> # vdpa mgmtdev show
>>>> vdpasim_net:
>>>> ??? supported_classes net
>>>> ??? max_supported_vqs 3
>>>> ??? dev_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT
VERSION_1
>>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>>
>>>> Sighs, not to blame any one and it's perhaps too late, but
this
>>>> "dev_features" attr in "mgmtdev show"
command output should have been
>>>> called "supported_features" in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure I get this, but I guess this is the negotiated
features
>>>> actually.
>>>>
>>>> Actually no, that is why I said the name is a bit confusing and
>>>> "supported_features" might sound better.
>>>>
>>>> You're right, it's an mgmtdev show actually.
>>>>
>>>> This attribute in the parent device (mgmtdev) denotes the real 
>>>> device capability for what virtio features can be supported by
the
>>>> parent device. Any unprivileged user can check into this field
to
>>>> know parent device's capability without having to create a
child
>>>> vDPA device at all. The features that child vDPA device may
support
>>>> should be a subset of, or at most up to what the parent device 
>>>> offers. For e.g. the vdpa device dev1 you created below can
expose
>>>> less or equal device_features bit than 0x308820028 (MTU MAC
CTRL_VQ
>>>> CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT VERSION_1 ACCESS_PLATFORM), but
shouldn't
>>>> be no more than what the parent device can actually support.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I didn't see anything wrong with
"dev_features",
>>>>
>>>> Yep, it didn't appear to me anything wrong either at first
sight,
>>>> then I gave my R-b on the series introduced this attribute. But
>>>> it's not a perfect name, either, on the other hand. Parav
later
>>>> pointed out that the corresponding enum definition for this 
>>>> attribute should follow pre-existing naming convention that we 
>>>> should perhaps do 
>>>>
s/VDPA_ATTR_DEV_SUPPORTED_FEATURES/VDPA_ATTR_MGMTDEV_SUPPORTED_FEATURES/
>>>> to get it renamed, as this is a mgmtdev level attribute, which
I
>>>> agree. Now that with the upcoming "device_features"
attribute (vdpa
>>>> dev level) from this series, it's subject to another
confusions
>>>> between these two similar names, but actually would represent 
>>>> things at different level. While all other attributes in
"mgmtdev
>>>> dev show" seem to be aligned with the
"supported_" prefix, e.g.
>>>> supported_classes, max_supported_vqs, from which I think the
stance
>>>> of device is already implied through "mgmtdev" in the
command. For
>>>> the perspective of clarify and easy distinction, 
>>>> "supported_features" seems to be a better name than
"dev_features".
>>> See another reply, I think I get your point,
>>>
>>> 1) VDPA_ATTR_VDPA_DEV_SUPPORTED_FEATURES (lingshan's series)
and
>>> VDPA_ATTR_VDPA_DEV_FEATURES should be equivalent and unified to a
>>> single attribute.
>>> 2) A better name to "supported_features" should be fine,
patches are
>>> welcomed
>>>
>>>> ? it aligns to the
>>>> virtio spec which means the features could be used to create a
vdpa
>>>> device. But if everyone agree on the renaming, I'm fine.
>>>>
>>>> Never mind, if it's late don't have to bother.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think Ling Shan is working on reporting both negotiated
features
>>>> with the device features.
>>>>
>>>> Does it imply this series is connected to another work in
parallel?
>>>> Is it possible to add a reference in the cover letter?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure, I remember Ling Shan did some work to not
block the
>>>> config show in this commit:
>>>>
>>>> commit a34bed37fc9d3da319bb75dfbf02a7d3e95e12de
>>>> Author: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu at intel.com>
>>>> Date:?? Fri Jul 22 19:53:07 2022 +0800
>>>>
>>>> ???? vDPA: !FEATURES_OK should not block querying device config
space
>>>>
>>>> We need some changes in the vdpa tool to show device_features
>>>> unconditionally in the "dev config show" command.
>>>>
>>>> That's true, I think I ever pointed it out to Lingshan
before, that
>>>> it's not needed to bother exposing those config space
fields in
>>>> "dev config show" output, if the only intent is for
live migration
>>>> of device features between nodes. For vDPA live migration, what
>>>> cares most is those configuration parameters specified on vdpa 
>>>> creation, and userspace VMM (QEMU) is supposed to take care of 
>>>> saving and restoring live device states. I think it's
easier to
>>>> extend "vdpa dev show" output to include
device_features and other
>>>> config params as well, rather than count on validity of various
>>>> config space fields.
>>> Probably, but for the migration it's more about the ability of
the
>>> mgmtdev instead of the vDPA device itself I think.
>> If picking the appropriate device for migration is what it is 
>> concerned, it's subject to the capability that mgmtdev offers.
That's
>> true, for sure.
>>
>> On the other hand, mgmt software would also need to take care of 
>> reconstructing the destination device with the same configuration as 
>> that at the source side. For example, a mgmtdev on source supports 
>> features A, B, C, D,? and destination mgmtdev supports features B, C, 
>> D, E. When vdpa device on the source is initially created with 
>> features B and C but without feature D (noted: creation with a subset 
>> of mgmtdev features was already supported before, and this series 
>> just makes it more explicit), the mgmt software is supposed to 
>> equally create a device with features B and C on dest, even though 
>> the destination may support feature D that the mgmtdev on both sides 
>> can support. My point is, we should have some flexibility on the mgmt 
>> software implementation that allows the mgmt software to easily tell 
>> apart the exact features (i.e. B and C in the above example) and the 
>> exact configuration a specific vdpa device was originally created 
>> with, via some simple query command. Having mgmt software to remember 
>> the vdpa creation args could work, but on the other hand it'd be
nice
>> to allow lightweight software implementation without having to 
>> persist the list of vdpa args and make vdpa tool more self-contained.
>>
>> I will post a patch (series) shortly to demonstrate this idea. 
>> Basically, there's no actual need to mess around with those config 
>> space values for live migration. It was not built for that purpose.
>
>
> Ok, let's see.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/454bdf1b-daa1-aa67-2b8c-bc15351c1851 at
oracle.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not just insufficient, but sometimes is incorrect to
create
>>>> vDPA device using the config space fields.? For instance, MAC 
>>>> address in config space can be changed temporarily (until
device
>>>> reset) via ctrl_vq VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_MAC_ADDR_SET command.
It's
>>>> incorrect to create vDPA using the MAC address shown in the
config
>>>> space.
>>> I think it's still a must for create the mac with the exact mac
>>> address:
>>>
>>> 1) VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_MAC is not a must
>>> 2) there's no way for us to know whether or not the mac has
been
>>> changed
>> Noted I think here we are still talking about VERSION_1 device which 
>> is spec conforming. So far as I understand the spec, if the 
>> VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_MAC feature is not negotiated, there's no way for
>> driver to change the default MAC address.
>
>
> For 1.0 device yes.
>
>
>>
>> Even if we want to simulate or support a legacy device model, when 
>> MAC address is changed by legacy driver somehow, QEMU should be able 
>> to detect this and issue a vdpa ioctl call to change the MAC address 
>> filter underneath. I don't see that it ever happens in today's
code,
>> so I presume the only possibility this may work is that the specific 
>> vDPA device may have an internal learning bridge that adapts to what 
>> MAC address the driver actually sends. 
>
>
> This is not true AFAIK. E.g when switchdev is enabled for mlx5 parent.
Hmmm, I guess you mean switchdev mode with external learning bridge 
software e.g. Open vSwitch? It's conceptionally the same with device 
internal learning bridge, no?

OK, though the point was that QEMU should anyway notify the backend of 
the mac address change for vDPA driver to apply the new MAC filter, 
similar to the way how CTRL_MAC ctrl_vq command is doing. It should not 
blindly assume that the every vDPA hardware may have underlying learning 
bridge construct, being internal or external. Basically it's not a 
universal assumption on the existence of learning bridge, this won't 
work for any other vDPA NIC without switchdev or learning bridge.
>
>
>> In this case, since the device doesn't care, recreate with the MAC
in
>> use is not needed, and technically it is even incorrect. In data 
>> centers or cloud environment, MAC address is usually controlled and 
>> managed by some central entity/service. If a driver can dominate the 
>> MAC address in use by deliberately overriding the default MAC and 
>> bypassing the central rule via live migration, that'd be a more 
>> severe security issue to address in the first place.
>
>
> There used to be a discussion to allow trust and spoof check as what 
> SR-IOV did. For safety, we can filter out CTRL_MAC right now. But I 
> think it's something out of the scope for this discussion.
Sorry I don't get what you mean here, but I guess we may talk about 
different thing here (it seems you talked about trusted model that 
allows any MAC address, but it's orthogonal to programming MAC address 
filter to the underlying hardware as far as I understand).
>
> But I still don't get what's wrong with have the same mac address 
> provisioned in both src and dst.
It looks like we may have misunderstood each other - that's exactly the 
point I want to make. The persistent mac address provisioned in dst by 
the mgmt software should stay the same with that on src, which is the 
default mac address rather than whatever other (temporary) mac address 
the VM might be using at the time of migration switchover at the source.
> It is the model used currently (e.g libvirt will guarantee the same 
> mac in both src and dst). The mgmt software can then guarantee that 
> the mac was fetched from the centralized manager.
Right, this is exactly the way our mgmt software works.
> And we can't depend purely on the migration since in some case it 
> can't work: e.g src MTU 4000 dst MTU 1500, migration will fail and 
> mgmt stack need to provision an 4000 to work.
This seems like a bug of libvirt. For our case, we strictly prohibit 
unequal MTU on src & dst to work. Even migrating from MTU 1500 to 4000, 
it effectively changes the underlying behavior for packet dropping and 
network setup at which maximum size the packet should be allowed when 
entering the VM.
>
>
>>
>>> 3) migration code can restore the mac during restore
>>>
>>> So exactly the same mac address is still required. (This is the
same
>>> as we are doing for live migration on software virtio)
>>>
>>>> ? Another example, if the source vDPA device has MAC address
table
>>>> size limit of 100, then in the destination we should pick
parent
>>>> device with size limit no smaller than that, and create vDPA on
>>>> remote node matching the exact same size. There's nothing
config
>>>> space field can assist here.
>>> Two ways:
>>>
>>> 1) mgmtdev should show the mac table size so mgmt layer can
provision
>>> the mac table size
>>> 2) If the mac table exceeds what is supported in the destination,
it
>>> needs to enable the all uni in this case.
>> Yep, so no field in the config space can help with these two 
>> solutions, right? MAC table size is not showing up there. Whether the 
>> parent device supports ALLUNI via VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_RX is not there, 
>> either. (showing them in the 'vdpa mgmtdev show' output is the
right
>> thing IMHO).
>>
>>>
>>>> One example further, in the future, if we are going to
introduce
>>>> mandatory feature (for e.g. VERSION_1, RING_PACKED) that the
device
>>>> is unable to support the opposite case, the destination device 
>>>> should be created with equally same mandatory device features, 
>>>> which only vDPA creation parameters should matter. While I
can't
>>>> think of a case that the mgmt software or live migration tool
would
>>>> have to count on config space fields only.
>>> Yes, in this case we need to introduce new netlink attributes for
both
>>> getting mandatory features from the management device and
provisioning
>>> those manadating features.
>> True, management device level thing again, not related to anything in 
>> the config space.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) provision vDPA device with all features that are supported
by the
>>>> ???? net simulator
>>>>
>>>> # vdpa dev add name dev1 mgmtdev vdpasim_net
>>>> # vdpa dev config show
>>>> dev1: mac 00:00:00:00:00:00 link up link_announce false mtu
1500
>>>> ??? negotiated_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR VERSION_1
>>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>>
>>>> Maybe not in this patch, but for completeness for the whole
series,
>>>> could we also add device_features to the output?
>>>>
>>>> Lingshan, could you please share your thoughts or patch on
this?
>>>>
>>>> Noted here the device_features argument specified during vdpa 
>>>> creation is introduced by this series itself, it somehow
slightly
>>>> changed the original semantics of what device_features used to
be.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I get this, we don't support
device_features in the past
>>>> and it is used to provision device features to the vDPA device
which
>>>> seems to be fine.
>>>>
>>>> Before this change, only look at the dev_features in
"mgmtdev show"
>>>> and remember creation parameters is sufficient to get to all
needed
>>>> info for creating vDPA at destination.
>>> Note that even with the same vendor, mgmtdev may support different 
>>> features.
>>>
>>>> After this change, dev_features in "mgmtdev show"
becomes less
>>>> relevant, as it would need to remember vdpa creation parameters
>>>> plus the device_features attribute. While this series allows
cross
>>>> vendor live migration, it would complicate the implementation
of
>>>> mgmt software, on the other hand.
>>> To allow cross vendor live migration I couldn't find a better
way.
>> The idea itself is great, I think, though the CLI interface may have 
>> some space for improvement. For example, user has to supply the 
>> heximal value consisting of each feature bit, which is a bit 
>> challenging for normal users who are not super familiar with each 
>> virtio feature. On the other hand, there could be ambiguity against 
>> other vdpa create option, e.g. users may do "vdpa dev add name
vdpa0
>> mgmtdev ... mtu 1500 device_features 0x300020000" (no F_MTU
feature
>> bit in device_features) that needs special validation in the code.
>
>
> We can accept e.g XML in the future I think.
Regardless of XML being a good interface or not for end users, but I 
don't see how it relates to the issue here i.e. conflict/ambiguity or 
extra validation in the (kernel) code.
>
>
>>
>> How about we follow the CPU flags model or QEMU virtio-net-pci args 
>> to define property representing each feature bit? I think the current 
>> convention for each "vdpa dev add" option implies that the 
>> corresponding feature bit will be enabled once specified in creation. 
>> Similarly we can introduce additional option representing each 
>> feature bit, along with a new features_default property denoting the 
>> initial value for device_feature bits:
>>
>> # vdpa mgmtdev show
>> vdpasim_net:
>> ? supported_classes net
>> ? max_supported_vqs 3
>> ? dev_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT VERSION_1 
>> ACCESS_PLATFORM
>> # vdpa dev add name dev1 mgmtdev vdpasim_net features_default off \
>> ????????????????????????? csum on guest_csum on mtu 2000 ctrl_vq on 
>> version1 on access_platform on
>> # vdpa dev show
>> dev1: type network mgmtdev vdpasim_net vendor_id 0 max_vqs 3 
>> max_vq_size 256
>> ?? features_default off mtu 2000
>> ?? device_features CSUM GUEST_CSUM MTU CTRL_VQ VERSION_1
ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>
>> If the features_default property is left unspecified or with the 
>> "inherited" value, it would just inherit all of the 
>> supported_features from mgmtdev (which is already the case of today).
>>
>> # vdpa dev add name dev1 mgmtdev vdpasim_net features_default inherited
>> # vdpa dev show
>> dev1: type network mgmtdev vdpasim_net vendor_id 0 max_vqs 3 
>> max_vq_size 256
>> ? features_default inherited
>> ? device_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT VERSION_1 
>> ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>
>> I can definitely help implement this model if you find it fits.
>
>
> I prefer XML since it could be reused and we may exceed 64bit 
> limitation in the future. But we can hear from others.
I don't see how this can be re-used by QEMU as QMP is not 
taking/exporting XML. Are we talking about libvirt here, which happens 
to be one amongst many others? My personal feeling is that not quite a 
lot of human end users (rather than management software or script) today 
would prefer using XML. Instead, like any other iproute utility, json 
seems to a more popular interface for script and mgmt software to 
consume, which vdpa tool supports natively already.

I think basically we can support two set of CLI interfaces, one friendly 
enough for human users, and another scriptable and parseable by 
management software users. IMO for now we should start to focus on the 
human oriented CLI design first. Whether XML v.s. json being an ideal 
interface for managment software would be another discussion that would 
need more inputs from the broader range of extended community, which is 
not worth distracting from.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When simply look at the "vdpa dev config show"
output, I cannot really
>>>> tell the actual device_features that was used in vdpa creation.
For
>>>> e.g.
>>>> there is a missing feature ANY_LAYOUT from negotiated_features 
>>>> compared
>>>> with supported_features in mgmtdev, but the orchestration
software
>>>> couldn't tell if the vdpa device on destination host should
be created
>>>> with or without the ANY_LAYOUT feature.
>>>>
>>>> I think VERSION_1 implies ANY_LAYOUT.
>>>>
>>>> Right, ANY_LAYOUT is a bad example. A good example might be
that, I
>>>> knew the parent mgmtdev on migration source node supports 
>>>> CTRL_MAC_ADDR, but I don't find it in negotiated_features.
>>>>
>>>> I think we should use the features that we got from
"mgmtdev show"
>>>> instead of "negotiated features".
>>>>
>>>> That was how it's supposed to work previously, but with
this
>>>> series, I think the newly introduced device_features will be
needed
>>>> instead of the one in "mgmtdev show".
>>> Just to clarify, there won't be a device_features in mgmtdev
show
>>> since it is device specific, each individual device can have its
own
>>> device features which are subset of what is supported by the
mgmtdev.
>> Yep.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the migration destination node, the parent device does
support
>>>> all features as the source offers, including CTRL_MAC_ADDR.
What
>>>> device features you would expect the mgmt software to create 
>>>> destination vdpa device with, if not otherwise requiring mgmt 
>>>> software to remember all the arguments on device creation?
>>> So the provisioning in the destination should use exactly the same
>>> device_feautres as what the vdpa device has in the source. But
before
>>> this, management layer should guarantee to provision a vDPA device
>>> whose device_features can be supported on the destination in order
to
>>> allow live migration.
>> Exactly.
>>>
>>>> So in this example, we need use "dev_features" so we
get exact the
>>>> same features after and operation as either src or dst.
>>>>
>>>> If the device_features vDPA created with at the source
doesn't
>>>> include CTRL_MAC_ADDR even though parent supports it, then the
vDPA
>>>> to be created at the destination shouldn't come with
CTRL_MAC_ADDR
>>>> either, regardless of whether or not CTRL_MAC_ADDR is present
in
>>>> destination "mgmtdev show".
>>>>
>>>> However, if just taking look at negotiated_features, some mgmt 
>>>> software implementations which don't persist the creation 
>>>> parameters can't get the device features a certain vDPA
device at
>>>> the source node was created with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SOURCE# vdpa mgmtdev show
>>>> vdpasim_net:
>>>> ??? supported_classes net
>>>> ??? max_supported_vqs 3
>>>> ??? dev_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT
VERSION_1
>>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>> SOURCE# vdpa dev config show
>>>> dev1: mac 00:00:00:00:00:00 link up link_announce false mtu
1500
>>>> ??? negotiated_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ VERSION_1
ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>>
>>>> DESTINATION# vdpa mgmtdev show
>>>> vdpasim_net:
>>>> ??? supported_classes net
>>>> ??? max_supported_vqs 3
>>>> ??? dev_features MTU MAC CTRL_VQ CTRL_MAC_ADDR ANY_LAYOUT
VERSION_1
>>>> ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>>
>>>> ? But it should be sufficient to
>>>> use features_src & feature_dst in this case. Actually, it
should work
>>>> similar as to the cpu flags, the management software should
introduce
>>>> the concept of cluster which means the maximal set of common
features
>>>> is calculated and provisioned during device creation to allow
>>>> migration among the nodes inside the cluster.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is one way mgmt software may implement, but I am not
sure
>>>> if it's the only way. For e.g. for cpu flags, mgmt software
can
>>>> infer the guest cpus features in use from all qemu command line
>>>> arguments and host cpu features/capability, which doesn't
need to
>>>> remember creation arguments and is easy to recover from failure
>>>> without having to make the VM config persistent in data store.
I
>>>> thought it would be great if vdpa CLI design could offer the
same.
>>>>
>>>> One minor difference is that we have cpu model abstraction, so
we can
>>>> have things like:
>>>>
>>>> ./qemu-system-x86_64 -cpu EPYC
>>>>
>>>> Which implies the cpu features/flags where vDPA doesn't
have. But
>>>> consider it's just a 64bit (or 128 in the future), it
doesn't seems to
>>>> be too complex for the management to know, we probably need to
start
>>>> from this and then we can try to introduce some
generation/model after
>>>> it is agreed on most of the vendors.
>>>>
>>>> What you refer to is the so-called named model for CPU flags. I
>>>> think it's a good addition to have some generation or named
model
>>>> defined for vDPA. But I don't get the point for how it
relates to
>>>> exposing the actual value of device features? Are you saying in
>>>> this case you'd rather expose the model name than the
actual value
>>>> of feature bits? Well, I think we can expose both in different 
>>>> fields when there's really such a need.
>>> It's something like:
>>>
>>> vdpa dev add name dev1 mgmtdev vdpasim_net device_features 
>>> VDPA_NET_MODEL_1
>>>
>>> and VDPA_NET_MODEL_1 implies some feature sets.
>>
>> Not sure if this could be very useful for virtio devices, given we 
>> don't have a determined set of virtio features unlike CPU 
>> generation/model, but I think even with the features_default property 
>> we can still achieve that.
>>
>> -Siwei
>
>
> Yes.
Let me get some time to implement and post the relevant patches (mostly 
in iproute) later. Basically this would supplement those config 
attributes introduced through the 'vdpa dev show' series below [1] with 
provisioned device features to reference:

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/1665793690-28120-1-git-send-email-si-wei.liu
at oracle.com/


Thanks,
-Siwei
>
> Thanks
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> BTW with regard to the cpu model in mgmt software
implementation,
>>>> the one implemented in libvirt is a mixed "Host
model" [1] with
>>>> taking advantage of QEMU named model and exposing additional 
>>>> individual CPU features that gets close to what host CPU
offers.
>>> So creating vDPA device without "device_features" is
somehow the host
>>> model, it will have all features that is supported by the parent.
>>>
>>>> I think this implies that mgmt software should have to
understand
>>>> what the model name really means in terms of individual CPU 
>>>> features, so having feature bit value exposed will just do more
>>>> help if vDPA goes the same way.
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -Siwei
>>>>
>>>> [1] 
>>>>
https://qemu-project.gitlab.io/qemu/system/qemu-cpu-models.html#two-ways-to-configure-cpu-models-with-qemu-kvm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Siwei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Siwei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) provision vDPA device with a subset of the features
>>>>
>>>> # vdpa dev add name dev1 mgmtdev vdpasim_net device_features 
>>>> 0x300020000
>>>> # vdpa dev config show
>>>> dev1: mac 00:00:00:00:00:00 link up link_announce false mtu
1500
>>>> ??? negotiated_features CTRL_VQ VERSION_1 ACCESS_PLATFORM
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Eli Cohen <elic at nvidia.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> ?? drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim_net.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>> ?? 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim_net.c 
>>>> b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim_net.c
>>>> index 886449e88502..a9ba02be378b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim_net.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim_net.c
>>>> @@ -254,6 +254,14 @@ static int vdpasim_net_dev_add(struct 
>>>> vdpa_mgmt_dev *mdev, const char *name,
>>>> ?????? dev_attr.work_fn = vdpasim_net_work;
>>>> ?????? dev_attr.buffer_size = PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>
>>>> +???? if (config->mask &
BIT_ULL(VDPA_ATTR_DEV_FEATURES)) {
>>>> +???????????? if (config->device_features &
>>>> +???????????????? ~dev_attr.supported_features)
>>>> +???????????????????? return -EINVAL;
>>>> +???????????? dev_attr.supported_features &>>>>
+????????????????????? config->device_features;
>>>> +???? }
>>>> +
>>>> ?????? simdev = vdpasim_create(&dev_attr);
>>>> ?????? if (IS_ERR(simdev))
>>>> ?????????????? return PTR_ERR(simdev);
>>>> @@ -294,7 +302,8 @@ static struct vdpa_mgmt_dev mgmt_dev = {
>>>> ?????? .id_table = id_table,
>>>> ?????? .ops = &vdpasim_net_mgmtdev_ops,
>>>> ?????? .config_attr_mask = (1 <<
VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MACADDR |
>>>> -????????????????????????? 1 <<
VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MTU),
>>>> +????????????????????????? 1 << VDPA_ATTR_DEV_NET_CFG_MTU
|
>>>> +????????????????????????? 1 << VDPA_ATTR_DEV_FEATURES),
>>>> ?????? .max_supported_vqs = VDPASIM_NET_VQ_NUM,
>>>> ?????? .supported_features = VDPASIM_NET_FEATURES,
>>>> ?? };
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20221017/e033e23a/attachment-0001.html>