Re: [PATCH 2/2] vDPA: conditionally read fields in virtio-net dev

Zhu, Lingshan
2022-08-17T02:03:55Z

On 8/17/2022 5:09 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 09:02:17PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 12:19 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/16/2022 10:32 AM, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>>>> From: Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 5:27 AM
>>>>>
>>>>> Some fields of virtio-net device config space are conditional on the
>>>>> feature bits, the spec says:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The mac address field always exists
>>>>> (though is only valid if VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC is set)"
>>>>>
>>>>> "max_virtqueue_pairs only exists if VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ or
>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS is set"
>>>>>
>>>>> "mtu only exists if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set"
>>>>>
>>>>> so we should read MTU, MAC and MQ in the device config space only
>>>>> when these feature bits are offered.
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>> For MQ, if both VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ and VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS are not set,
>>> the
>>>>> virtio device should have one queue pair as default value, so when
>>>>> userspace querying queue pair numbers, it should return mq=1 than zero.
>>>> No.
>>>> No need to treat mac and max_qps differently.
>>>> It is meaningless to differentiate when field exist/not-exists vs value
>>> valid/not valid.
>>> as we discussed before, MQ has a default value 1, to be a functional virtio-
>>> net device, while MAC has no default value, if no VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC set,
>>> the driver should generate a random MAC.
>>>>> For MTU, if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is not set, we should not read MTU from
>>>>> the device config sapce.
>>>>> RFC894 <A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over Ethernet
>>>>> Networks> says:"The minimum length of the data field of a packet sent
>>>>> Networks> over
>>>>> an Ethernet is 1500 octets, thus the maximum length of an IP datagram
>>>>> sent over an Ethernet is 1500 octets. Implementations are encouraged
>>>>> to support full-length packets"
>>>> This line in the RFC 894 of 1984 is wrong.
>>>> Errata already exists for it at [1].
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=894&rec_status=0
>>> OK, so I think we should return nothing if _F_MTU not set, like handling the
>>> MAC
>>>>> virtio spec says:"The virtio network device is a virtual ethernet
>>>>> card", so the default MTU value should be 1500 for virtio-net.
>>>>>
>>>> Practically I have seen 1500 and highe mtu.
>>>> And this derivation is not good of what should be the default mtu as above
>>> errata exists.
>>>> And I see the code below why you need to work so hard to define a default
>>> value so that _MQ and _MTU can report default values.
>>>> There is really no need for this complexity and such a long commit
>>> message.
>>>> Can we please expose feature bits as-is and report config space field which
>>> are valid?
>>>> User space will be querying both.
>>> I think MAC and MTU don't have default values, so return nothing if the
>>> feature bits not set,
>>> for MQ, it is still max_vq_paris == 1 by default.
>> I have stressed enough to highlight the fact that we don’t want to start digging default/no default, valid/no-valid part of the spec.
>> I prefer kernel to reporting fields that _exists_ in the config space and are valid.
>> I will let MST to handle the maintenance nightmare that this kind of patch brings in without any visible gain to user space/orchestration apps.
>>
>> A logic that can be easily build in user space, should be written in user space.
>> I conclude my thoughts here for this discussion.
>>
>> I will let MST to decide how he prefers to proceed.
>>
>>>>> + if ((features & BIT_ULL(VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) == 0)
>>>>> + val_u16 = 1500;
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + val_u16 = __virtio16_to_cpu(true, config->mtu);
>>>>> +
>>>> Need to work hard to find default values and that too turned out had
>>> errata.
>>>> There are more fields that doesn’t have default values.
>>>>
>>>> There is no point in kernel doing this guess work, that user space can figure
>>> out of what is valid/invalid.
>>> It's not guest work, when guest finds no feature bits set, it can decide what
>>> to do.
>> Above code of doing 1500 was probably an honest attempt to find a legitimate default value, and we saw that it doesn’t work.
>> This is second example after _MQ that we both agree should not return default.
>>
>> And there are more fields coming in this area.
>> Hence, I prefer to not avoid returning such defaults for MAC, MTU, MQ and rest all fields which doesn’t _exists_.
>>
>> I will let MST to decide how he prefers to proceed for every field to come next.
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> If MTU does not return a value without _F_MTU, and MAC does not return
> a value without _F_MAC then IMO yes, number of queues should not return
> a value without _F_MQ.
sure I can do this, but may I ask whether it is a final decision, I
remember you supported max_queue_paris = 1 without _F_MQ before

Thanks
>
>