Re: [RFC] vhost: Clear the pending messages on vhost_init_device_iotlb()

Jason Wang
2022-11-09T03:40:30Z

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 5:31 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 05:13:50PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 4:56 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 11:09:36AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 7:06 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 10:10:06PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > On 11/7/22 21:42, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:34:31PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> > > > > > >> When the vhost iotlb is used along with a guest virtual iommu
> > > > > > >> and the guest gets rebooted, some MISS messages may have been
> > > > > > >> recorded just before the reboot and spuriously executed by
> > > > > > >> the virtual iommu after the reboot. Despite the device iotlb gets
> > > > > > >> re-initialized, the messages are not cleared. Fix that by calling
> > > > > > >> vhost_clear_msg() at the end of vhost_init_device_iotlb().
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> > > > > > >> ---
> > > > > > >> drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 1 +
> > > > > > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > > > > >> index 40097826cff0..422a1fdee0ca 100644
> > > > > > >> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > > > > >> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > > > > >> @@ -1751,6 +1751,7 @@ int vhost_init_device_iotlb(struct vhost_dev *d, bool enabled)
> > > > > > >> }
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> vhost_iotlb_free(oiotlb);
> > > > > > >> + vhost_clear_msg(d);
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> return 0;
> > > > > > >> }
> > > > > > > Hmm. Can't messages meanwhile get processes and affect the
> > > > > > > new iotlb?
> > > > > > Isn't the msg processing stopped at the moment this function is called
> > > > > > (VHOST_SET_FEATURES)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eric
> > > > >
> > > > > It's pretty late here I'm not sure. You tell me what prevents it.
> > > >
> > > > So the proposed code assumes that Qemu doesn't process device IOTLB
> > > > before VHOST_SET_FEAETURES. Consider there's no reset in the general
> > > > vhost uAPI, I wonder if it's better to move the clear to device code
> > > > like VHOST_NET_SET_BACKEND. So we can clear it per vq?
> > >
> > > Hmm this makes no sense to me. iommu sits between backend
> > > and frontend. Tying one to another is going to backfire.
> >
> > I think we need to emulate what real devices are doing. Device should
> > clear the page fault message during reset, so the driver won't read
> > anything after reset. But we don't have a per device stop or reset
> > message for vhost-net. That's why the VHOST_NET_SET_BACKEND came into
> > my mind.
>
> That's not a reset message. Userspace can switch backends at will.
> I guess we could check when backend is set to -1.
> It's a hack but might work.

Yes, that's what I meant actually.

>
> > >
> > > I'm thinking more along the lines of doing everything
> > > under iotlb_lock.
> >
> > I think the problem is we need to find a proper place to clear the
> > message. So I don't get how iotlb_lock can help: the message could be
> > still read from user space after the backend is set to NULL.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Well I think the real problem is this.
>
> vhost_net_set_features does:
>
> if ((features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM))) {
> if (vhost_init_device_iotlb(&n->dev, true))
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
>
> so we get a new iotlb each time features are set.

Right, but this looks like another independent issue that needs to be fixed.

>
> But features can be changes while device is running.
> E.g.
> VHOST_F_LOG_ALL
>
>
> Let's just say this hack of reusing feature bits for backend
> was not my brightest idea :(
>

Probably :)

Thanks

>
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW vhost_init_device_iotlb gets enabled parameter but ignores
> > > > > it, we really should drop that.
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, it looks like if features are set with VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
> > > > > and then cleared, iotlb is not properly cleared - bug?
> > > >
> > > > Not sure, old IOTLB may still work. But for safety, we need to disable
> > > > device IOTLB in this case.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> 2.37.3
> > > > >
> > >
>