Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] vfio/migration: Implement VFIO migration protocol v2

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 06:27:21PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> also, in vfio_migration_query_flags() :
> 
>   +static int vfio_migration_query_flags(VFIODevice *vbasedev, uint64_t *mig_flags)
>   +{
>   +    uint64_t buf[DIV_ROUND_UP(sizeof(struct vfio_device_feature) +
>   +                                  sizeof(struct vfio_device_feature_migration),
>   +                              sizeof(uint64_t))] = {};
>   +    struct vfio_device_feature *feature = (struct vfio_device_feature *)buf;
>   +    struct vfio_device_feature_migration *mig =
>   +        (struct vfio_device_feature_migration *)feature->data;
>   +
>   +    feature->argsz = sizeof(buf);
>   +    feature->flags = VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_GET | VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE_MIGRATION;
>   +    if (ioctl(vbasedev->fd, VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE, feature)) {
>   +        return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>   +    }
>   +
>   +    *mig_flags = mig->flags;
>   +
>   +    return 0;
>   +}
> 
> 
> The code is using any possible error returned by the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE
> ioctl to distinguish protocol v1 from v2.

I'm comfortable with that from a kernel perspective.

There is no such thing as this API failing in the kernel but userspace
should continue on, no matter what the error code. So always failing
here is correct.

About the only thing you might want to do is convert anything other
than ENOTTY into a hard qemu failure similar to failing to open
/dev/vfio or something - it means something has gone really
wrong.. But that is pretty obscure stuff

Jason