From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 647BCC433EF for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:43:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:33612 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ncSPt-0004wc-BI for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 09:43:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51686) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ncSKo-0001yF-TG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 09:38:02 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]:50407) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ncSKn-0001Dj-EZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 09:38:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1649338680; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=qhL/0kZcgBGsYUXAbgjknUi3zb6t3/ixNfEEP/co0sQ=; b=M670p16z75xL2bh6PqJGE6hOEjkhCugCwyQRJsv15m+WaIjiynX2fpp7pxPffhdCLL/3DE KahuTOqXfPC4aWRQgZgEx3t0NMbL0b/tqh1ay+41IDIqLStmR5FhCl53CKx9FmBmzOFXQf EhFZDy64RRhQB5zbawRhfAE16l61/vo= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-455-AIWiFI1SNQGj8nKho9f9yA-1; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 09:37:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: AIWiFI1SNQGj8nKho9f9yA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 483542999B5A; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:37:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merkur.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.195.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9831F54AC9E; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:37:52 +0000 (UTC) From: Kevin Wolf To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Subject: [PATCH 2/3] libvhost-user: Fix extra vu_add/rem_mem_reg reply Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:36:56 +0200 Message-Id: <20220407133657.155281-3-kwolf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20220407133657.155281-1-kwolf@redhat.com> References: <20220407133657.155281-1-kwolf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.85 on 10.11.54.9 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=kwolf@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; x-default=true Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=kwolf@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.082, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Outside of postcopy mode, neither VHOST_USER_ADD_MEM_REG nor VHOST_USER_REM_MEM_REG are supposed to send a reply unless explicitly requested with the need_reply flag. Their current implementation always sends a reply, even if it isn't requested. This confuses the master because it will interpret the reply as a reply for the next message for which it actually expects a reply. need_reply is already handled correctly by vu_dispatch(), so just don't send a reply in the non-postcopy part of the message handler for these two commands. Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf --- subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c | 9 +++------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c b/subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c index 47d2efc60f..eccaff5168 100644 --- a/subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c +++ b/subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c @@ -800,8 +800,7 @@ vu_add_mem_reg(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg *vmsg) { DPRINT("Successfully added new region\n"); dev->nregions++; - vmsg_set_reply_u64(vmsg, 0); - return true; + return false; } } @@ -874,15 +873,13 @@ vu_rem_mem_reg(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg *vmsg) { } } - if (found) { - vmsg_set_reply_u64(vmsg, 0); - } else { + if (!found) { vu_panic(dev, "Specified region not found\n"); } close(vmsg->fds[0]); - return true; + return false; } static bool -- 2.35.1