Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-Jul-04 10:38 UTC
[PATCH] vdpa: reject F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK if backend does not support it
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 12:25:32PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 4:52?PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 04:22:18PM +0200, Eugenio P?rez wrote: > > > With the current code it is accepted as long as userland send it. > > > > > > Although userland should not set a feature flag that has not been > > > offered to it with VHOST_GET_BACKEND_FEATURES, the current code will not > > > complain for it. > > > > > > Since there is no specific reason for any parent to reject that backend > > > feature bit when it has been proposed, let's control it at vdpa frontend > > > level. Future patches may move this control to the parent driver. > > > > > > Fixes: 967800d2d52e ("vdpa: accept VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK backend feature") > > > Signed-off-by: Eugenio P?rez <eperezma at redhat.com> > > > > Please do send v3. And again, I don't want to send "after driver ok" hack > > upstream at all, I merged it in next just to give it some testing. > > We want RING_ACCESS_AFTER_KICK or some such. > > > > Current devices do not support that semantic.Which devices specifically access the ring after DRIVER_OK but before a kick?> My plan was to convert > it in vp_vdpa if needed, and reuse the current vdpa ops. Sorry if I > was not explicit enough. > > The only solution I can see to that is to trap & emulate in the vdpa > (parent?) driver, as talked in virtio-comment. But that complicates > the architecture: > * Offer VHOST_BACKEND_F_RING_ACCESS_AFTER_KICK > * Store vq enable state separately, at > vdpa->config->set_vq_ready(true), but not transmit that enable to hw > * Store the doorbell state separately, but do not configure it to the > device directly. > > But how to recover if the device cannot configure them at kick time, > for example? > > Maybe we can just fail if the parent driver does not support enabling > the vq after DRIVER_OK? That way no new feature flag is needed. > > Thanks! > > > > > > --- > > > Sent with Fixes: tag pointing to git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst > > > commit. Please let me know if I should send a v3 of [1] instead. > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230609121244-mutt-send-email-mst at kernel.org/T/ > > > --- > > > drivers/vhost/vdpa.c | 7 +++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c > > > index e1abf29fed5b..a7e554352351 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c > > > @@ -681,18 +681,21 @@ static long vhost_vdpa_unlocked_ioctl(struct file *filep, > > > { > > > struct vhost_vdpa *v = filep->private_data; > > > struct vhost_dev *d = &v->vdev; > > > + const struct vdpa_config_ops *ops = v->vdpa->config; > > > void __user *argp = (void __user *)arg; > > > u64 __user *featurep = argp; > > > - u64 features; > > > + u64 features, parent_features = 0; > > > long r = 0; > > > > > > if (cmd == VHOST_SET_BACKEND_FEATURES) { > > > if (copy_from_user(&features, featurep, sizeof(features))) > > > return -EFAULT; > > > + if (ops->get_backend_features) > > > + parent_features = ops->get_backend_features(v->vdpa); > > > if (features & ~(VHOST_VDPA_BACKEND_FEATURES | > > > BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_SUSPEND) | > > > BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_RESUME) | > > > - BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK))) > > > + parent_features)) > > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > if ((features & BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_SUSPEND)) && > > > !vhost_vdpa_can_suspend(v)) > > > -- > > > 2.39.3 > >
Jason Wang
2023-Jul-05 07:55 UTC
[PATCH] vdpa: reject F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK if backend does not support it
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 6:38?PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote:> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 12:25:32PM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 4:52?PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 04:22:18PM +0200, Eugenio P?rez wrote: > > > > With the current code it is accepted as long as userland send it. > > > > > > > > Although userland should not set a feature flag that has not been > > > > offered to it with VHOST_GET_BACKEND_FEATURES, the current code will not > > > > complain for it. > > > > > > > > Since there is no specific reason for any parent to reject that backend > > > > feature bit when it has been proposed, let's control it at vdpa frontend > > > > level. Future patches may move this control to the parent driver. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 967800d2d52e ("vdpa: accept VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK backend feature") > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugenio P?rez <eperezma at redhat.com> > > > > > > Please do send v3. And again, I don't want to send "after driver ok" hack > > > upstream at all, I merged it in next just to give it some testing. > > > We want RING_ACCESS_AFTER_KICK or some such. > > > > > > > Current devices do not support that semantic. > > Which devices specifically access the ring after DRIVER_OK but before > a kick?Vhost-net is one example at last. It polls a socket as well, so it starts to access the ring immediately after DRIVER_OK. Thanks> > > My plan was to convert > > it in vp_vdpa if needed, and reuse the current vdpa ops. Sorry if I > > was not explicit enough. > > > > The only solution I can see to that is to trap & emulate in the vdpa > > (parent?) driver, as talked in virtio-comment. But that complicates > > the architecture: > > * Offer VHOST_BACKEND_F_RING_ACCESS_AFTER_KICK > > * Store vq enable state separately, at > > vdpa->config->set_vq_ready(true), but not transmit that enable to hw > > * Store the doorbell state separately, but do not configure it to the > > device directly. > > > > But how to recover if the device cannot configure them at kick time, > > for example? > > > > Maybe we can just fail if the parent driver does not support enabling > > the vq after DRIVER_OK? That way no new feature flag is needed. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Sent with Fixes: tag pointing to git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst > > > > commit. Please let me know if I should send a v3 of [1] instead. > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230609121244-mutt-send-email-mst at kernel.org/T/ > > > > --- > > > > drivers/vhost/vdpa.c | 7 +++++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c > > > > index e1abf29fed5b..a7e554352351 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vdpa.c > > > > @@ -681,18 +681,21 @@ static long vhost_vdpa_unlocked_ioctl(struct file *filep, > > > > { > > > > struct vhost_vdpa *v = filep->private_data; > > > > struct vhost_dev *d = &v->vdev; > > > > + const struct vdpa_config_ops *ops = v->vdpa->config; > > > > void __user *argp = (void __user *)arg; > > > > u64 __user *featurep = argp; > > > > - u64 features; > > > > + u64 features, parent_features = 0; > > > > long r = 0; > > > > > > > > if (cmd == VHOST_SET_BACKEND_FEATURES) { > > > > if (copy_from_user(&features, featurep, sizeof(features))) > > > > return -EFAULT; > > > > + if (ops->get_backend_features) > > > > + parent_features = ops->get_backend_features(v->vdpa); > > > > if (features & ~(VHOST_VDPA_BACKEND_FEATURES | > > > > BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_SUSPEND) | > > > > BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_RESUME) | > > > > - BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK))) > > > > + parent_features)) > > > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > if ((features & BIT_ULL(VHOST_BACKEND_F_SUSPEND)) && > > > > !vhost_vdpa_can_suspend(v)) > > > > -- > > > > 2.39.3 > > > >
Seemingly Similar Threads
- [PATCH] vdpa: reject F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK if backend does not support it
- [PATCH] vdpa: reject F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK if backend does not support it
- [PATCH] mlx5_vdpa: offer VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK
- [PATCH] mlx5_vdpa: offer VHOST_BACKEND_F_ENABLE_AFTER_DRIVER_OK
- [GIT PULL] virtio: features