From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, markver@us.ibm.com,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back features before verify
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 03:26:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211003032253-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211003021027-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 02:42:30AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 07:00:30AM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 14:20:47 -0400
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >From my perspective the problem is that the version of the device
> > > > remains in limbo as long as the features have not yet been finalized,
> > > > which means that the endianness of the config space remains in limbo as
> > > > well. Both device and driver might come to different conclusions.
> > >
> > > Version === legacy versus modern?
> > > It is true that feature negotiation can not be used by device to decide that
> > > question simply because it happens too late.
> > > So let's not use it for that then ;)
> > >
> > > Yes we have VERSION_1 which looks like it should allow this, but
> > > unfortunately it only helps with that for the driver, not the device.
> > >
> > > In practice legacy versus modern has to be determined by
> > > transport specific versioning, luckily we have that for all
> > > specified transports (can't say what happens with rproc).
> >
> > So if we look at ccw, you say that the revision negotiation already
> > determines whether VERSION_1 is negotiated or not, and the
> > feature bit VERSION_1 is superfluous?
> >
> > That would also imply, that
> > 1) if revision > 0 was negotiated then the device must offer VERSION_1
> > 2) if revision > 0 was negotiated and the driver cleared VERSION_1
> > the device must refuse to operate.
> > 3) if revision > 0 was negotiated then the driver should reject
> > to drive a device if it does not offer VERSION_1
> > 4) if revision > 0 was negotiated the driver must accept VERSION_1
> > 5) if revision > 0 was *not* negotiated then the device should not offer
> > VERSION_1 because at this point it is already certain that the device
> > can not act in accordance to the virtio 1.0 or higher interface.
> >
> > Does that sound about right?
>
> To me, it does.
>
> > IMHO we should also change
> > https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.1/cs01/virtio-v1.1-cs01.html#x1-160003
> > and the definition of VERSION_1 because both sides have to know what is
> > going on before features are fully negotiated. Or?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Halil
> >
>
> I guess so. And I guess we need transport-specific sections
> describing this behaviour for each transport.
>
> So something like this, for starters?
Sent too early. So here's what I propose. Could you pls take a look
and if you like this, post a ccw section?
There's also an attempt to prevent fallback from modern to legacy
here since if driver does fallback then failing FEATURES_OK can't work
properly.
That's a separate issue, will be a separate patch when I post
this for consideration by the TC.
diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
index 1398390..06271f4 100644
--- a/content.tex
+++ b/content.tex
@@ -140,10 +140,13 @@ \subsection{Legacy Interface: A Note on Feature
Bits}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature
Bits / Legacy Interface: A Note on Feature Bits}
-Transitional Drivers MUST detect Legacy Devices by detecting that
-the feature bit VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 is not offered.
-Transitional devices MUST detect Legacy drivers by detecting that
-VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 has not been acknowledged by the driver.
+Transitional drivers MAY support operating legacy devices.
+Transitional devices MAY support operation by legacy drivers.
+
+Transitional drivers MUST detect legacy devices in a way that is
+transport specific.
+Transitional devices MUST detect legacy drivers in a way that
+is transport specific.
In this case device is used through the legacy interface.
@@ -160,6 +163,33 @@ \subsection{Legacy Interface: A Note on Feature
Specification text within these sections generally does not apply
to non-transitional devices.
+\begin{note}
+The device offers different features when used through
+the legacy interface and when operated in accordance with this
+specification.
+\end{note}
+
+Transitional drivers MUST use Devices only through the legacy interface
+if the feature bit VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 is not offered.
+Transitional devices MUST NOT offer VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 when used through
+the legacy interface.
+
+When the driver uses a device through the legacy interface, then it
+MUST only accept the features the device offered through the
+legacy interface.
+
+When used through the legacy interface, the device SHOULD
+validate that the driver only accepted the features it
+offered through the legacy interface.
+
+When operating a transitional device, a transitional driver
+SHOULD NOT use the device through the legacy interface if
+operation through the modern interface has failed.
+In particular, a transitional driver
+SHOULD NOT fall back to using the device through the
+legacy interface if feature negotiation failed
+(since that would defeat the purpose of the FEATURES_OK bit).
+
\section{Notifications}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device
/ Notifications}
@@ -1003,6 +1033,12 @@ \subsubsection{Common configuration structure layout}\label{sec:Virtio Transport
The driver MUST NOT write a 0 to \field{queue_enable}.
+\paragraph}{Legacy Interface: Common configuration structure layout}\label{sec:Virtio Transport Options / Virtio Over PCI Bus / PCI Device Layout / Legacy Interface: Common configuration structure layout}
+Transitional drivers SHOULD detect legacy devices by detecting
+that the device has the Transitional PCI Device ID in
+the range 0x1000 to 0x103f and lacks a VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_COMMON_CFG
+capability specifying the location of a common configuration structure.
+
\subsubsection{Notification structure layout}\label{sec:Virtio Transport Options / Virtio Over PCI Bus / PCI Device Layout / Notification capability}
The notification location is found using the VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_NOTIFY_CFG
@@ -1288,6 +1324,10 @@ \subsubsection{Legacy Interfaces: A Note on PCI Device Layout}\label{sec:Virtio
Transitional devices MUST present part of configuration
registers in a legacy configuration structure in BAR0 in the first I/O
region of the PCI device, as documented below.
+
+Transitional devices SHOULD detect legacy drivers by detecting
+access to the legacy configuration structure.
+
When using the legacy interface, transitional drivers
MUST use the legacy configuration structure in BAR0 in the first
I/O region of the PCI device, as documented below.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, markver@us.ibm.com,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back features before verify
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 03:26:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211003032253-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211003021027-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 02:42:30AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 07:00:30AM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Oct 2021 14:20:47 -0400
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >From my perspective the problem is that the version of the device
> > > > remains in limbo as long as the features have not yet been finalized,
> > > > which means that the endianness of the config space remains in limbo as
> > > > well. Both device and driver might come to different conclusions.
> > >
> > > Version === legacy versus modern?
> > > It is true that feature negotiation can not be used by device to decide that
> > > question simply because it happens too late.
> > > So let's not use it for that then ;)
> > >
> > > Yes we have VERSION_1 which looks like it should allow this, but
> > > unfortunately it only helps with that for the driver, not the device.
> > >
> > > In practice legacy versus modern has to be determined by
> > > transport specific versioning, luckily we have that for all
> > > specified transports (can't say what happens with rproc).
> >
> > So if we look at ccw, you say that the revision negotiation already
> > determines whether VERSION_1 is negotiated or not, and the
> > feature bit VERSION_1 is superfluous?
> >
> > That would also imply, that
> > 1) if revision > 0 was negotiated then the device must offer VERSION_1
> > 2) if revision > 0 was negotiated and the driver cleared VERSION_1
> > the device must refuse to operate.
> > 3) if revision > 0 was negotiated then the driver should reject
> > to drive a device if it does not offer VERSION_1
> > 4) if revision > 0 was negotiated the driver must accept VERSION_1
> > 5) if revision > 0 was *not* negotiated then the device should not offer
> > VERSION_1 because at this point it is already certain that the device
> > can not act in accordance to the virtio 1.0 or higher interface.
> >
> > Does that sound about right?
>
> To me, it does.
>
> > IMHO we should also change
> > https://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.1/cs01/virtio-v1.1-cs01.html#x1-160003
> > and the definition of VERSION_1 because both sides have to know what is
> > going on before features are fully negotiated. Or?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Halil
> >
>
> I guess so. And I guess we need transport-specific sections
> describing this behaviour for each transport.
>
> So something like this, for starters?
Sent too early. So here's what I propose. Could you pls take a look
and if you like this, post a ccw section?
There's also an attempt to prevent fallback from modern to legacy
here since if driver does fallback then failing FEATURES_OK can't work
properly.
That's a separate issue, will be a separate patch when I post
this for consideration by the TC.
diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
index 1398390..06271f4 100644
--- a/content.tex
+++ b/content.tex
@@ -140,10 +140,13 @@ \subsection{Legacy Interface: A Note on Feature
Bits}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature
Bits / Legacy Interface: A Note on Feature Bits}
-Transitional Drivers MUST detect Legacy Devices by detecting that
-the feature bit VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 is not offered.
-Transitional devices MUST detect Legacy drivers by detecting that
-VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 has not been acknowledged by the driver.
+Transitional drivers MAY support operating legacy devices.
+Transitional devices MAY support operation by legacy drivers.
+
+Transitional drivers MUST detect legacy devices in a way that is
+transport specific.
+Transitional devices MUST detect legacy drivers in a way that
+is transport specific.
In this case device is used through the legacy interface.
@@ -160,6 +163,33 @@ \subsection{Legacy Interface: A Note on Feature
Specification text within these sections generally does not apply
to non-transitional devices.
+\begin{note}
+The device offers different features when used through
+the legacy interface and when operated in accordance with this
+specification.
+\end{note}
+
+Transitional drivers MUST use Devices only through the legacy interface
+if the feature bit VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 is not offered.
+Transitional devices MUST NOT offer VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 when used through
+the legacy interface.
+
+When the driver uses a device through the legacy interface, then it
+MUST only accept the features the device offered through the
+legacy interface.
+
+When used through the legacy interface, the device SHOULD
+validate that the driver only accepted the features it
+offered through the legacy interface.
+
+When operating a transitional device, a transitional driver
+SHOULD NOT use the device through the legacy interface if
+operation through the modern interface has failed.
+In particular, a transitional driver
+SHOULD NOT fall back to using the device through the
+legacy interface if feature negotiation failed
+(since that would defeat the purpose of the FEATURES_OK bit).
+
\section{Notifications}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device
/ Notifications}
@@ -1003,6 +1033,12 @@ \subsubsection{Common configuration structure layout}\label{sec:Virtio Transport
The driver MUST NOT write a 0 to \field{queue_enable}.
+\paragraph}{Legacy Interface: Common configuration structure layout}\label{sec:Virtio Transport Options / Virtio Over PCI Bus / PCI Device Layout / Legacy Interface: Common configuration structure layout}
+Transitional drivers SHOULD detect legacy devices by detecting
+that the device has the Transitional PCI Device ID in
+the range 0x1000 to 0x103f and lacks a VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_COMMON_CFG
+capability specifying the location of a common configuration structure.
+
\subsubsection{Notification structure layout}\label{sec:Virtio Transport Options / Virtio Over PCI Bus / PCI Device Layout / Notification capability}
The notification location is found using the VIRTIO_PCI_CAP_NOTIFY_CFG
@@ -1288,6 +1324,10 @@ \subsubsection{Legacy Interfaces: A Note on PCI Device Layout}\label{sec:Virtio
Transitional devices MUST present part of configuration
registers in a legacy configuration structure in BAR0 in the first I/O
region of the PCI device, as documented below.
+
+Transitional devices SHOULD detect legacy drivers by detecting
+access to the legacy configuration structure.
+
When using the legacy interface, transitional drivers
MUST use the legacy configuration structure in BAR0 in the first
I/O region of the PCI device, as documented below.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-03 7:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 131+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-30 1:20 [RFC PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back features before verify Halil Pasic
2021-09-30 1:20 ` Halil Pasic
2021-09-30 8:04 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-30 8:04 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-30 9:28 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-09-30 9:28 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-09-30 11:03 ` Halil Pasic
2021-09-30 11:03 ` Halil Pasic
2021-09-30 11:31 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-09-30 11:31 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-01 14:22 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-01 14:22 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-01 15:18 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-01 15:18 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-02 18:13 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-02 18:13 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 2:23 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-04 2:23 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-04 9:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 9:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 9:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 10:06 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 10:06 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 10:06 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 10:43 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 10:43 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 10:43 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 11:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 11:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 11:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:59 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:59 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:59 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 15:25 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 15:25 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 15:25 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 7:01 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 7:01 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 9:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-04 9:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-04 9:51 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 9:51 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-02 12:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-02 12:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-30 11:12 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-30 11:12 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-30 11:36 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-09-30 11:36 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-02 18:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-02 18:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-03 5:00 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-03 5:00 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-03 6:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-03 6:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-03 7:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2021-10-03 7:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 12:01 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 12:01 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 12:01 ` [virtio-dev] " Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 12:54 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 12:54 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 14:27 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 14:27 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 14:27 ` [virtio-dev] " Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:05 ` [virtio-dev] " Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:45 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:45 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:45 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 20:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 20:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 7:38 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 7:38 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 7:38 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 11:17 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:17 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 15:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 15:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 15:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 15:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-01 7:21 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-01 7:21 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-02 10:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-02 10:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 12:19 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 12:19 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 12:19 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 13:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 13:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 13:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 14:33 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 14:33 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 14:33 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:50 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:50 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:50 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 19:17 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 19:17 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 19:17 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-06 10:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-06 10:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-06 10:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-06 12:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-06 12:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-06 12:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 7:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 7:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 7:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 7:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 7:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 7:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 10:46 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 10:46 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 10:46 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-01 14:34 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-10-01 14:34 ` Christian Borntraeger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211003032253-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markver@us.ibm.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xieyongji@bytedance.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.