All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, markver@us.ibm.com,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
	stefanha@redhat.com,
	Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back F_VERSION_1 before validate
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 17:52:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211007175242.4b0155b8.pasic@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8735pczwjj.fsf@redhat.com>

On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 17:25:52 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 07 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 13:52:24 +0200
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On Wed, Oct 06 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>   
> >> > The virtio specification virtio-v1.1-cs01 states: "Transitional devices
> >> > MUST detect Legacy drivers by detecting that VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 has not
> >> > been acknowledged by the driver."  This is exactly what QEMU as of 6.1
> >> > has done relying solely on VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 for detecting that.
> >> >
> >> > However, the specification also says: "... driver MAY read (but MUST NOT
> >> > write) the device-specific configuration fields to check that it can
> >> > support the device ..." before setting FEATURES_OK.    
> >> 
> >> Suggest to put the citations from the spec into quotes, so that they are
> >> distinguishable from the rest of the text.  
> >
> > For the record: I basically took Michael's description, the one which you
> > said you prefer, with some minor changes.  
> 
> Well I did look at what the text said, not the details in the formatting...
> 
> >
> > This is one of the changes, which renders this a paraphrase and not a
> > quote. Michael didn't use quotation marks so I was not sure it is was
> > a word by word quote anyway. It was. But the spec depends on "During this
> > step" which does not make any sense without the context. That is why I made
> > the end of step explicit.  
> 
> I still think that would be nicer while using some quotation marks, even
> if you are just doing a partial quote.
> 
> In the first paragraph, however, we really should mark the quote
> properly. It gave me a stop when I first read it.

I've added in some quotation marks and ellipsis marks. Does that look
good for you?

> 
> >
> > I think we are fine without quotation marks. Those who care can read the
> > spec.
> >  
> >>   
> >> >
> >> > In that case, any transitional device relying solely on
> >> > VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 for detecting legacy drivers will return data in
> >> > legacy format.  In particular, this implies that it is in big endian
> >> > format for big endian guests. This naturally confuses the driver which
> >> > expects little endian in the modern mode.
> >> >
> >> > It is probably a good idea to amend the spec to clarify that
> >> > VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 can only be relied on after the feature negotiation
> >> > is complete. However, we already have regression so let's try to address    
> >> 
> >> s/regression/a regression/
> >>   
> >
> > Yes. Was like this in the original. Will change
> >  
> >> > it.    
> >> 
> >> Maybe mention what the regression is?  
> >
> > How about the following?
> >
> > The regressions affect the VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU feature of virtio-net and the
> > VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature of virtio-blk for BE guests when virtio
> > 1.0 is used on both sides. The latter renders virtio-blk unusable with
> > DASD backing, because things simply don't work with the default.  
> 
> Sounds good to me.

Will add it to the end.

> 
> >  
> >> 
> >> Also mention that we use this workaround for modern on BE only?  
> >
> > We have that already, don't we. The sentence that starts with "In
> > particular". The regression description should reinforce that
> > sufficiently IMHO.  
> 
> No strong opinion here. Anyone else?
> 
> >  
> >>   
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> >> > Fixes: 82e89ea077b9 ("virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space")
> >> > Fixes: fe36cbe0671e ("virtio_net: clear MTU when out of range")
> >> > Reported-by: markver@us.ibm.com
> >> > ---
> >> >  drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > index 0a5b54034d4b..494cfecd3376 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > @@ -239,6 +239,16 @@ static int virtio_dev_probe(struct device *_d)
> >> >  		driver_features_legacy = driver_features;
> >> >  	}
> >> >  
> >> > +	/*
> >> > +	 * Some devices detect legacy solely via F_VERSION_1. Write
> >> > +	 * F_VERSION_1 to force LE for these when needed.    
> >> 
> >> "...to force LE config space accesses before FEATURES_OK for these when
> >> needed (BE)."
> >> 
> >> ?  
> >
> > Can do, but I would rather omit the (BE) at the end. All the conditions
> > are necessary:
> > * have validate callback
> > * device offered VERSION_1
> > * virtio legacy is be
> >  
> 
> Ok, let's use that without the trailing BE.
>

Nod.
 
> >>   
> >> > +	 */
> >> > +	if (drv->validate && !virtio_legacy_is_little_endian()
> >> > +			  && BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1) & device_features) {    
> >> 
> >> Nit: putting device_features first would read more naturally to me.
> >>   
> >
> > Can do.
> >  
> >> > +		dev->features = BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1);
> >> > +		dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
> >> > +	}
> >> > +
> >> >  	if (device_features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
> >> >  		dev->features = driver_features & device_features;
> >> >  	else    
> >> 
> >> Patch LGTM.
> >> 
> >>   
> >
> > Thanks for having a look. If you are fine with the proposed solution
> > please tell me, so I can send out a v2.  
> 
> No further comments other than what I wrote above, but maybe others have
> comments as well?
> 
> 

I will wait then till end of day before sending out a v2.

Thank you very much!

Regards,
Halil

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, markver@us.ibm.com,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
	Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
	Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>,
	stefanha@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back F_VERSION_1 before validate
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 17:52:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211007175242.4b0155b8.pasic@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8735pczwjj.fsf@redhat.com>

On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 17:25:52 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 07 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 13:52:24 +0200
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On Wed, Oct 06 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>   
> >> > The virtio specification virtio-v1.1-cs01 states: "Transitional devices
> >> > MUST detect Legacy drivers by detecting that VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 has not
> >> > been acknowledged by the driver."  This is exactly what QEMU as of 6.1
> >> > has done relying solely on VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 for detecting that.
> >> >
> >> > However, the specification also says: "... driver MAY read (but MUST NOT
> >> > write) the device-specific configuration fields to check that it can
> >> > support the device ..." before setting FEATURES_OK.    
> >> 
> >> Suggest to put the citations from the spec into quotes, so that they are
> >> distinguishable from the rest of the text.  
> >
> > For the record: I basically took Michael's description, the one which you
> > said you prefer, with some minor changes.  
> 
> Well I did look at what the text said, not the details in the formatting...
> 
> >
> > This is one of the changes, which renders this a paraphrase and not a
> > quote. Michael didn't use quotation marks so I was not sure it is was
> > a word by word quote anyway. It was. But the spec depends on "During this
> > step" which does not make any sense without the context. That is why I made
> > the end of step explicit.  
> 
> I still think that would be nicer while using some quotation marks, even
> if you are just doing a partial quote.
> 
> In the first paragraph, however, we really should mark the quote
> properly. It gave me a stop when I first read it.

I've added in some quotation marks and ellipsis marks. Does that look
good for you?

> 
> >
> > I think we are fine without quotation marks. Those who care can read the
> > spec.
> >  
> >>   
> >> >
> >> > In that case, any transitional device relying solely on
> >> > VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 for detecting legacy drivers will return data in
> >> > legacy format.  In particular, this implies that it is in big endian
> >> > format for big endian guests. This naturally confuses the driver which
> >> > expects little endian in the modern mode.
> >> >
> >> > It is probably a good idea to amend the spec to clarify that
> >> > VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 can only be relied on after the feature negotiation
> >> > is complete. However, we already have regression so let's try to address    
> >> 
> >> s/regression/a regression/
> >>   
> >
> > Yes. Was like this in the original. Will change
> >  
> >> > it.    
> >> 
> >> Maybe mention what the regression is?  
> >
> > How about the following?
> >
> > The regressions affect the VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU feature of virtio-net and the
> > VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature of virtio-blk for BE guests when virtio
> > 1.0 is used on both sides. The latter renders virtio-blk unusable with
> > DASD backing, because things simply don't work with the default.  
> 
> Sounds good to me.

Will add it to the end.

> 
> >  
> >> 
> >> Also mention that we use this workaround for modern on BE only?  
> >
> > We have that already, don't we. The sentence that starts with "In
> > particular". The regression description should reinforce that
> > sufficiently IMHO.  
> 
> No strong opinion here. Anyone else?
> 
> >  
> >>   
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> >> > Fixes: 82e89ea077b9 ("virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space")
> >> > Fixes: fe36cbe0671e ("virtio_net: clear MTU when out of range")
> >> > Reported-by: markver@us.ibm.com
> >> > ---
> >> >  drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > index 0a5b54034d4b..494cfecd3376 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > @@ -239,6 +239,16 @@ static int virtio_dev_probe(struct device *_d)
> >> >  		driver_features_legacy = driver_features;
> >> >  	}
> >> >  
> >> > +	/*
> >> > +	 * Some devices detect legacy solely via F_VERSION_1. Write
> >> > +	 * F_VERSION_1 to force LE for these when needed.    
> >> 
> >> "...to force LE config space accesses before FEATURES_OK for these when
> >> needed (BE)."
> >> 
> >> ?  
> >
> > Can do, but I would rather omit the (BE) at the end. All the conditions
> > are necessary:
> > * have validate callback
> > * device offered VERSION_1
> > * virtio legacy is be
> >  
> 
> Ok, let's use that without the trailing BE.
>

Nod.
 
> >>   
> >> > +	 */
> >> > +	if (drv->validate && !virtio_legacy_is_little_endian()
> >> > +			  && BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1) & device_features) {    
> >> 
> >> Nit: putting device_features first would read more naturally to me.
> >>   
> >
> > Can do.
> >  
> >> > +		dev->features = BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1);
> >> > +		dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
> >> > +	}
> >> > +
> >> >  	if (device_features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
> >> >  		dev->features = driver_features & device_features;
> >> >  	else    
> >> 
> >> Patch LGTM.
> >> 
> >>   
> >
> > Thanks for having a look. If you are fine with the proposed solution
> > please tell me, so I can send out a v2.  
> 
> No further comments other than what I wrote above, but maybe others have
> comments as well?
> 
> 

I will wait then till end of day before sending out a v2.

Thank you very much!

Regards,
Halil
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, markver@us.ibm.com,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
	Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
	Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>,
	stefanha@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back F_VERSION_1 before validate
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 17:52:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211007175242.4b0155b8.pasic@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8735pczwjj.fsf@redhat.com>

On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 17:25:52 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 07 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 13:52:24 +0200
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On Wed, Oct 06 2021, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>   
> >> > The virtio specification virtio-v1.1-cs01 states: "Transitional devices
> >> > MUST detect Legacy drivers by detecting that VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 has not
> >> > been acknowledged by the driver."  This is exactly what QEMU as of 6.1
> >> > has done relying solely on VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 for detecting that.
> >> >
> >> > However, the specification also says: "... driver MAY read (but MUST NOT
> >> > write) the device-specific configuration fields to check that it can
> >> > support the device ..." before setting FEATURES_OK.    
> >> 
> >> Suggest to put the citations from the spec into quotes, so that they are
> >> distinguishable from the rest of the text.  
> >
> > For the record: I basically took Michael's description, the one which you
> > said you prefer, with some minor changes.  
> 
> Well I did look at what the text said, not the details in the formatting...
> 
> >
> > This is one of the changes, which renders this a paraphrase and not a
> > quote. Michael didn't use quotation marks so I was not sure it is was
> > a word by word quote anyway. It was. But the spec depends on "During this
> > step" which does not make any sense without the context. That is why I made
> > the end of step explicit.  
> 
> I still think that would be nicer while using some quotation marks, even
> if you are just doing a partial quote.
> 
> In the first paragraph, however, we really should mark the quote
> properly. It gave me a stop when I first read it.

I've added in some quotation marks and ellipsis marks. Does that look
good for you?

> 
> >
> > I think we are fine without quotation marks. Those who care can read the
> > spec.
> >  
> >>   
> >> >
> >> > In that case, any transitional device relying solely on
> >> > VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 for detecting legacy drivers will return data in
> >> > legacy format.  In particular, this implies that it is in big endian
> >> > format for big endian guests. This naturally confuses the driver which
> >> > expects little endian in the modern mode.
> >> >
> >> > It is probably a good idea to amend the spec to clarify that
> >> > VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1 can only be relied on after the feature negotiation
> >> > is complete. However, we already have regression so let's try to address    
> >> 
> >> s/regression/a regression/
> >>   
> >
> > Yes. Was like this in the original. Will change
> >  
> >> > it.    
> >> 
> >> Maybe mention what the regression is?  
> >
> > How about the following?
> >
> > The regressions affect the VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU feature of virtio-net and the
> > VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE feature of virtio-blk for BE guests when virtio
> > 1.0 is used on both sides. The latter renders virtio-blk unusable with
> > DASD backing, because things simply don't work with the default.  
> 
> Sounds good to me.

Will add it to the end.

> 
> >  
> >> 
> >> Also mention that we use this workaround for modern on BE only?  
> >
> > We have that already, don't we. The sentence that starts with "In
> > particular". The regression description should reinforce that
> > sufficiently IMHO.  
> 
> No strong opinion here. Anyone else?
> 
> >  
> >>   
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> >> > Fixes: 82e89ea077b9 ("virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space")
> >> > Fixes: fe36cbe0671e ("virtio_net: clear MTU when out of range")
> >> > Reported-by: markver@us.ibm.com
> >> > ---
> >> >  drivers/virtio/virtio.c | 10 ++++++++++
> >> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > index 0a5b54034d4b..494cfecd3376 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio.c
> >> > @@ -239,6 +239,16 @@ static int virtio_dev_probe(struct device *_d)
> >> >  		driver_features_legacy = driver_features;
> >> >  	}
> >> >  
> >> > +	/*
> >> > +	 * Some devices detect legacy solely via F_VERSION_1. Write
> >> > +	 * F_VERSION_1 to force LE for these when needed.    
> >> 
> >> "...to force LE config space accesses before FEATURES_OK for these when
> >> needed (BE)."
> >> 
> >> ?  
> >
> > Can do, but I would rather omit the (BE) at the end. All the conditions
> > are necessary:
> > * have validate callback
> > * device offered VERSION_1
> > * virtio legacy is be
> >  
> 
> Ok, let's use that without the trailing BE.
>

Nod.
 
> >>   
> >> > +	 */
> >> > +	if (drv->validate && !virtio_legacy_is_little_endian()
> >> > +			  && BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1) & device_features) {    
> >> 
> >> Nit: putting device_features first would read more naturally to me.
> >>   
> >
> > Can do.
> >  
> >> > +		dev->features = BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1);
> >> > +		dev->config->finalize_features(dev);
> >> > +	}
> >> > +
> >> >  	if (device_features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1))
> >> >  		dev->features = driver_features & device_features;
> >> >  	else    
> >> 
> >> Patch LGTM.
> >> 
> >>   
> >
> > Thanks for having a look. If you are fine with the proposed solution
> > please tell me, so I can send out a v2.  
> 
> No further comments other than what I wrote above, but maybe others have
> comments as well?
> 
> 

I will wait then till end of day before sending out a v2.

Thank you very much!

Regards,
Halil


  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-07 15:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-06 14:25 [PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back F_VERSION_1 before validate Halil Pasic
2021-10-06 14:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-06 14:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-07 11:52 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-07 11:52   ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-07 11:52   ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-07 14:32   ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-07 14:32     ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-07 14:32     ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-07 15:25     ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-07 15:25       ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-07 15:25       ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-07 15:52       ` Halil Pasic [this message]
2021-10-07 15:52         ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-07 15:52         ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-07 16:16         ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-07 16:16           ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-07 16:16           ` Cornelia Huck

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=20211007175242.4b0155b8.pasic@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=pasic@linux.ibm.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=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com \
    --cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
    --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.