[virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> > 
> > On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
> > > Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
> > > for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
> > > features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
> > > are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
> > > and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
> > > 
> > > It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
> > > config space before features are set. For instance, when
> > > feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
> > > will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
> > > space before virtio features are set.
> > 
> > 
> > This looks like a spec violation:
> > 
> > "
> > 
> > The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
> > VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
> > driver to use.
> > "
> > 
> > Do we really want to workaround this?
> 
> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
> 
> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
> while now).

Oh  you are right:


static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
{
        if (!vdev->config->get) {
                dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
                        __func__);
                return -EINVAL;
        }

        if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
                return -EINVAL;

        if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
                int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
                                         offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
                                                  mtu));
                if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
                        __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
        }

        return 0;
}

And the spec says:


The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
1. Reset the device.
2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.


Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
FEATURES_OK.

I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".

Generally it is worth going over feature dependent config fields
and checking whether they should be present when device feature is set
or when feature bit has been negotiated, and making this clear.

-- 
MST


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

[virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Jason Wang]

On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>
>> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>> Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
>>>> for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
>>>> features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
>>>> are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
>>>> and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
>>>>
>>>> It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
>>>> config space before features are set. For instance, when
>>>> feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
>>>> will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
>>>> space before virtio features are set.
>>>
>>> This looks like a spec violation:
>>>
>>> "
>>>
>>> The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
>>> driver to use.
>>> "
>>>
>>> Do we really want to workaround this?
>> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
>>
>> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
>> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
>> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
>> while now).
> Oh  you are right:
>
>
> static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> {
>          if (!vdev->config->get) {
>                  dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
>                          __func__);
>                  return -EINVAL;
>          }
>
>          if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
>                  return -EINVAL;
>
>          if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>                  int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>                                           offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>                                                    mtu));
>                  if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>                          __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);


I wonder why not simply fail here?


>          }
>
>          return 0;
> }
>
> And the spec says:
>
>
> The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
> 1. Reset the device.
> 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
> 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
> 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
> device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
> fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
> 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
> 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
> support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
> 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
> reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
> 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
>
>
> Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
> FEATURES_OK.
>
> I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".


So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in 
the spec that has different implications.

Thanks


>
> Generally it is worth going over feature dependent config fields
> and checking whether they should be present when device feature is set
> or when feature bit has been negotiated, and making this clear.
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

[virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 05:46:20PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
> > > > > Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
> > > > > for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
> > > > > features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
> > > > > are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
> > > > > and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
> > > > > config space before features are set. For instance, when
> > > > > feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
> > > > > will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
> > > > > space before virtio features are set.
> > > > 
> > > > This looks like a spec violation:
> > > > 
> > > > "
> > > > 
> > > > The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
> > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
> > > > driver to use.
> > > > "
> > > > 
> > > > Do we really want to workaround this?
> > > Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
> > > 
> > > I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
> > > host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
> > > should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
> > > while now).
> > Oh  you are right:
> > 
> > 
> > static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > {
> >          if (!vdev->config->get) {
> >                  dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
> >                          __func__);
> >                  return -EINVAL;
> >          }
> > 
> >          if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
> >                  return -EINVAL;
> > 
> >          if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
> >                  int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
> >                                           offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
> >                                                    mtu));
> >                  if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
> >                          __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
> 
> 
> I wonder why not simply fail here?

Back in 2016 it went like this:

	On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 05:10:59PM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
	> +     if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
	> +             dev->mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
	> +                                       offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
	> +                                                mtu));
	> +     }
	> +
	>       if (vi->any_header_sg)
	>               dev->needed_headroom = vi->hdr_len;
	> 

	One comment though: I think we should validate the mtu.
	If it's invalid, clear VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and ignore.


Too late at this point :)

I guess it's a way to tell device "I can not live with this MTU",
device can fail FEATURES_OK if it wants to. MIN_MTU
is an internal linux thing and at the time I felt it's better to
try to make progress.


> 
> >          }
> > 
> >          return 0;
> > }
> > 
> > And the spec says:
> > 
> > 
> > The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
> > 1. Reset the device.
> > 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
> > 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
> > 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
> > device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
> > fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
> > 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
> > 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
> > support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
> > 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
> > reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
> > 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
> > 
> > 
> > Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
> > FEATURES_OK.
> > 
> > I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".
> 
> 
> So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in the
> spec that has different implications.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> > 
> > Generally it is worth going over feature dependent config fields
> > and checking whether they should be present when device feature is set
> > or when feature bit has been negotiated, and making this clear.
> > 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

[virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Jason Wang]

On 2021/2/23 6:01 下午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 05:46:20PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>> Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
>>>>>> for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
>>>>>> features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
>>>>>> are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
>>>>>> and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
>>>>>> config space before features are set. For instance, when
>>>>>> feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
>>>>>> will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
>>>>>> space before virtio features are set.
>>>>> This looks like a spec violation:
>>>>>
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
>>>>> driver to use.
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we really want to workaround this?
>>>> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
>>>>
>>>> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
>>>> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
>>>> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
>>>> while now).
>>> Oh  you are right:
>>>
>>>
>>> static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>> {
>>>           if (!vdev->config->get) {
>>>                   dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
>>>                           __func__);
>>>                   return -EINVAL;
>>>           }
>>>
>>>           if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
>>>                   return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>>           if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>>>                   int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>>>                                            offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>>>                                                     mtu));
>>>                   if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>>>                           __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
>>
>> I wonder why not simply fail here?
> Back in 2016 it went like this:
>
> 	On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 05:10:59PM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
> 	> +     if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
> 	> +             dev->mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
> 	> +                                       offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
> 	> +                                                mtu));
> 	> +     }
> 	> +
> 	>       if (vi->any_header_sg)
> 	>               dev->needed_headroom = vi->hdr_len;
> 	>
>
> 	One comment though: I think we should validate the mtu.
> 	If it's invalid, clear VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and ignore.
>
>
> Too late at this point :)
>
> I guess it's a way to tell device "I can not live with this MTU",
> device can fail FEATURES_OK if it wants to. MIN_MTU
> is an internal linux thing and at the time I felt it's better to
> try to make progress.


What if e.g the device advertise a large MTU. E.g 64K here? In that 
case, the driver can not live either. Clearing MTU won't help here.

Thanks


>
>
>>>           }
>>>
>>>           return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> And the spec says:
>>>
>>>
>>> The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
>>> 1. Reset the device.
>>> 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
>>> 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
>>> 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
>>> device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
>>> fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
>>> 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
>>> 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
>>> support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
>>> 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
>>> reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
>>> 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
>>>
>>>
>>> Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
>>> FEATURES_OK.
>>>
>>> I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".
>>
>> So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in the
>> spec that has different implications.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>> Generally it is worth going over feature dependent config fields
>>> and checking whether they should be present when device feature is set
>>> or when feature bit has been negotiated, and making this clear.
>>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

[virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Jason Wang]

On 2021/2/23 6:17 下午, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2021/2/23 6:01 下午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 05:46:20PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>>> Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
>>>>>>> for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
>>>>>>> features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
>>>>>>> are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
>>>>>>> and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
>>>>>>> config space before features are set. For instance, when
>>>>>>> feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
>>>>>>> will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
>>>>>>> space before virtio features are set.
>>>>>> This looks like a spec violation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> driver to use.
>>>>>> "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we really want to workaround this?
>>>>> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy 
>>>>> guest?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to 
>>>>> support, this
>>>>> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the 
>>>>> violating driver
>>>>> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists 
>>>>> for a
>>>>> while now).
>>>> Oh  you are right:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>>> {
>>>>           if (!vdev->config->get) {
>>>>                   dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access 
>>>> disabled\n",
>>>>                           __func__);
>>>>                   return -EINVAL;
>>>>           }
>>>>
>>>>           if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
>>>>                   return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>>           if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>>>>                   int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>>>>                                            offsetof(struct 
>>>> virtio_net_config,
>>>>                                                     mtu));
>>>>                   if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>>>>                           __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
>>>
>>> I wonder why not simply fail here?
>> Back in 2016 it went like this:
>>
>>     On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 05:10:59PM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
>>     > +     if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>>     > +             dev->mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>>     > +                                       offsetof(struct 
>> virtio_net_config,
>>     > +                                                mtu));
>>     > +     }
>>     > +
>>     >       if (vi->any_header_sg)
>>     >               dev->needed_headroom = vi->hdr_len;
>>     >
>>
>>     One comment though: I think we should validate the mtu.
>>     If it's invalid, clear VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and ignore.
>>
>>
>> Too late at this point :)
>>
>> I guess it's a way to tell device "I can not live with this MTU",
>> device can fail FEATURES_OK if it wants to. MIN_MTU
>> is an internal linux thing and at the time I felt it's better to
>> try to make progress.
>
>
> What if e.g the device advertise a large MTU. E.g 64K here?


Ok, consider we use add_recvbuf_small() when neither GSO nor mrg_rxbuf. 
This means we should fail the probing if MTU is greater than 1500 in 
this case.

Thanks


> In that case, the driver can not live either. Clearing MTU won't help 
> here.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>           }
>>>>
>>>>           return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> And the spec says:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
>>>> 1. Reset the device.
>>>> 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the 
>>>> device.
>>>> 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the 
>>>> device.
>>>> 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits 
>>>> understood by the OS and driver to the
>>>> device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) 
>>>> the device-specific configuration
>>>> fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
>>>> 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new 
>>>> feature bits after this step.
>>>> 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still 
>>>> set: otherwise, the device does not
>>>> support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
>>>> 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues 
>>>> for the device, optional per-bus setup,
>>>> reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration 
>>>> space, and population of virtqueues.
>>>> 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
>>>> FEATURES_OK.
>>>>
>>>> I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device 
>>>> features".
>>>
>>> So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many 
>>> times in the
>>> spec that has different implications.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>> Generally it is worth going over feature dependent config fields
>>>> and checking whether they should be present when device feature is set
>>>> or when feature bit has been negotiated, and making this clear.
>>>>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Cornelia Huck]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:46:20 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:  
> >>
> >> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:  
> >>> On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:  
> >>>> Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
> >>>> for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
> >>>> features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
> >>>> are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
> >>>> and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
> >>>> config space before features are set. For instance, when
> >>>> feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
> >>>> will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
> >>>> space before virtio features are set.  
> >>>
> >>> This looks like a spec violation:
> >>>
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
> >>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
> >>> driver to use.
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> Do we really want to workaround this?  
> >> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
> >>
> >> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
> >> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
> >> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
> >> while now).  
> > Oh  you are right:
> >
> >
> > static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > {
> >          if (!vdev->config->get) {
> >                  dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
> >                          __func__);
> >                  return -EINVAL;
> >          }
> >
> >          if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
> >                  return -EINVAL;
> >
> >          if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
> >                  int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
> >                                           offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
> >                                                    mtu));
> >                  if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
> >                          __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);  
> 
> 
> I wonder why not simply fail here?

I think both failing or not accepting the feature can be argued to make
sense: "the device presented us with a mtu size that does not make
sense" would point to failing, "we cannot work with the mtu size that
the device presented us" would point to not negotiating the feature.

> 
> 
> >          }
> >
> >          return 0;
> > }
> >
> > And the spec says:
> >
> >
> > The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
> > 1. Reset the device.
> > 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
> > 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
> > 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
> > device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
> > fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
> > 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
> > 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
> > support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
> > 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
> > reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
> > 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
> >
> >
> > Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
> > FEATURES_OK.
> >
> > I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".  
> 
> 
> So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in 
> the spec that has different implications.

Before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver, I guess it means "the device
has offered the feature"; during normal usage, it means "the feature
has been negotiated". (This is a bit fuzzy for legacy mode.)

Should we add a wording clarification to the spec?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Jason Wang]

On 2021/2/23 6:04 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:46:20 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>> Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
>>>>>> for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
>>>>>> features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
>>>>>> are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
>>>>>> and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
>>>>>> config space before features are set. For instance, when
>>>>>> feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
>>>>>> will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
>>>>>> space before virtio features are set.
>>>>> This looks like a spec violation:
>>>>>
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
>>>>> driver to use.
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we really want to workaround this?
>>>> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
>>>>
>>>> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
>>>> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
>>>> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
>>>> while now).
>>> Oh  you are right:
>>>
>>>
>>> static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>> {
>>>           if (!vdev->config->get) {
>>>                   dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
>>>                           __func__);
>>>                   return -EINVAL;
>>>           }
>>>
>>>           if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
>>>                   return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>>           if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>>>                   int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>>>                                            offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>>>                                                     mtu));
>>>                   if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>>>                           __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
>>
>> I wonder why not simply fail here?
> I think both failing or not accepting the feature can be argued to make
> sense: "the device presented us with a mtu size that does not make
> sense" would point to failing, "we cannot work with the mtu size that
> the device presented us" would point to not negotiating the feature.
>
>>
>>>           }
>>>
>>>           return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> And the spec says:
>>>
>>>
>>> The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
>>> 1. Reset the device.
>>> 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
>>> 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
>>> 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
>>> device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
>>> fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
>>> 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
>>> 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
>>> support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
>>> 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
>>> reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
>>> 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
>>>
>>>
>>> Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
>>> FEATURES_OK.
>>>
>>> I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".
>>
>> So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in
>> the spec that has different implications.
> Before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver, I guess it means "the device
> has offered the feature";


For me this part is ok since it clarify that it's the driver that set 
the bit.



> during normal usage, it means "the feature
> has been negotiated".

/?

It looks to me the feature negotiation is done only after device set 
FEATURES_OK, or FEATURES_OK could be read from device status?


>   (This is a bit fuzzy for legacy mode.)


The problem is the MTU description for example:

"The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if 
VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set."

It looks to me need to use "if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set by device". 
Otherwise readers (at least for me), may think the MTU is only valid if 
driver set the bit.


>
> Should we add a wording clarification to the spec?


I think so.

Thanks

>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Cornelia Huck]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:31:07 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 2021/2/23 6:04 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:46:20 +0800
> > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> >>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:  
> >>>> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:  
> >>>>> On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:  
> >>>>>> Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
> >>>>>> for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
> >>>>>> features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
> >>>>>> are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
> >>>>>> and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
> >>>>>> config space before features are set. For instance, when
> >>>>>> feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
> >>>>>> will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
> >>>>>> space before virtio features are set.  
> >>>>> This looks like a spec violation:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
> >>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
> >>>>> driver to use.
> >>>>> "
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do we really want to workaround this?  
> >>>> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
> >>>> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
> >>>> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
> >>>> while now).  
> >>> Oh  you are right:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >>> {
> >>>           if (!vdev->config->get) {
> >>>                   dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
> >>>                           __func__);
> >>>                   return -EINVAL;
> >>>           }
> >>>
> >>>           if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
> >>>                   return -EINVAL;
> >>>
> >>>           if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
> >>>                   int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
> >>>                                            offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
> >>>                                                     mtu));
> >>>                   if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
> >>>                           __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);  
> >>
> >> I wonder why not simply fail here?  
> > I think both failing or not accepting the feature can be argued to make
> > sense: "the device presented us with a mtu size that does not make
> > sense" would point to failing, "we cannot work with the mtu size that
> > the device presented us" would point to not negotiating the feature.
> >  
> >>  
> >>>           }
> >>>
> >>>           return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> And the spec says:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
> >>> 1. Reset the device.
> >>> 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
> >>> 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
> >>> 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
> >>> device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
> >>> fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
> >>> 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
> >>> 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
> >>> support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
> >>> 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
> >>> reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
> >>> 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
> >>> FEATURES_OK.
> >>>
> >>> I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".  
> >>
> >> So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in
> >> the spec that has different implications.  
> > Before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver, I guess it means "the device
> > has offered the feature";  
> 
> 
> For me this part is ok since it clarify that it's the driver that set 
> the bit.
> 
> 
> 
> > during normal usage, it means "the feature
> > has been negotiated".  
> 
> /?
> 
> It looks to me the feature negotiation is done only after device set 
> FEATURES_OK, or FEATURES_OK could be read from device status?

I'd consider feature negotiation done when the driver reads FEATURES_OK
back from the status.

> 
> 
> >   (This is a bit fuzzy for legacy mode.)

...because legacy does not have FEATURES_OK.
  
> 
> 
> The problem is the MTU description for example:
> 
> "The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if 
> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set."
> 
> It looks to me need to use "if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set by device".

"offered by the device"? I don't think it should 'disappear' from the
config space if the driver won't use it. (Same for other config space
fields that are tied to feature bits.)
 
> Otherwise readers (at least for me), may think the MTU is only valid
> if driver set the bit.

I think it would still be 'valid' in the sense that it exists and has
some value in there filled in by the device, but a driver reading it
without negotiating the feature would be buggy. (Like in the kernel
code above; the kernel not liking the value does not make the field
invalid.)

Maybe a statement covering everything would be:

"The following driver-read-only field mtu only exists if the device
offers VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and may be read by the driver during feature
negotiation and after VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU has been successfully
negotiated."

> 
> 
> >
> > Should we add a wording clarification to the spec?  
> 
> 
> I think so.

Some clarification would be needed for each field that depends on a
feature; that would be quite verbose. Maybe we can get away with a
clarifying statement?

"Some config space fields may depend on a certain feature. In that
case, the field exits if the device has offered the corresponding
feature, and may be read by the driver during feature negotiation, and
accessed by the driver after the feature has been successfully
negotiated. A shorthand for this is a statement that a field only
exists if a certain feature bit is set."


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Jason Wang]

On 2021/2/23 6:58 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:31:07 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2021/2/23 6:04 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:46:20 +0800
>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>> Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
>>>>>>>> for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
>>>>>>>> features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
>>>>>>>> are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
>>>>>>>> and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
>>>>>>>> config space before features are set. For instance, when
>>>>>>>> feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
>>>>>>>> will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
>>>>>>>> space before virtio features are set.
>>>>>>> This looks like a spec violation:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
>>>>>>> driver to use.
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we really want to workaround this?
>>>>>> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
>>>>>> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
>>>>>> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
>>>>>> while now).
>>>>> Oh  you are right:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>>>> {
>>>>>            if (!vdev->config->get) {
>>>>>                    dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
>>>>>                            __func__);
>>>>>                    return -EINVAL;
>>>>>            }
>>>>>
>>>>>            if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
>>>>>                    return -EINVAL;
>>>>>
>>>>>            if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>>>>>                    int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>>>>>                                             offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>>>>>                                                      mtu));
>>>>>                    if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>>>>>                            __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
>>>> I wonder why not simply fail here?
>>> I think both failing or not accepting the feature can be argued to make
>>> sense: "the device presented us with a mtu size that does not make
>>> sense" would point to failing, "we cannot work with the mtu size that
>>> the device presented us" would point to not negotiating the feature.
>>>   
>>>>   
>>>>>            }
>>>>>
>>>>>            return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> And the spec says:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
>>>>> 1. Reset the device.
>>>>> 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
>>>>> 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
>>>>> 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
>>>>> device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
>>>>> fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
>>>>> 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
>>>>> 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
>>>>> support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
>>>>> 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
>>>>> reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
>>>>> 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
>>>>> FEATURES_OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".
>>>> So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in
>>>> the spec that has different implications.
>>> Before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver, I guess it means "the device
>>> has offered the feature";
>>
>> For me this part is ok since it clarify that it's the driver that set
>> the bit.
>>
>>
>>
>>> during normal usage, it means "the feature
>>> has been negotiated".
>> /?
>>
>> It looks to me the feature negotiation is done only after device set
>> FEATURES_OK, or FEATURES_OK could be read from device status?
> I'd consider feature negotiation done when the driver reads FEATURES_OK
> back from the status.


I agree.


>
>>
>>>    (This is a bit fuzzy for legacy mode.)
> ...because legacy does not have FEATURES_OK.
>    
>>
>> The problem is the MTU description for example:
>>
>> "The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set."
>>
>> It looks to me need to use "if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set by device".
> "offered by the device"? I don't think it should 'disappear' from the
> config space if the driver won't use it. (Same for other config space
> fields that are tied to feature bits.)


But what happens if e.g device doesn't offer VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU? It looks 
to according to the spec there will be no mtu field.

And a more interesting case is VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered but 
VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU offered. To me, it means we don't have 
max_virtqueue_pairs but it's not how the driver is wrote today.


>   
>> Otherwise readers (at least for me), may think the MTU is only valid
>> if driver set the bit.
> I think it would still be 'valid' in the sense that it exists and has
> some value in there filled in by the device, but a driver reading it
> without negotiating the feature would be buggy. (Like in the kernel
> code above; the kernel not liking the value does not make the field
> invalid.)


See Michael's reply, the spec allows read the config before setting 
features.


>
> Maybe a statement covering everything would be:
>
> "The following driver-read-only field mtu only exists if the device
> offers VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and may be read by the driver during feature
> negotiation and after VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU has been successfully
> negotiated."
>
>>
>>> Should we add a wording clarification to the spec?
>>
>> I think so.
> Some clarification would be needed for each field that depends on a
> feature; that would be quite verbose. Maybe we can get away with a
> clarifying statement?
>
> "Some config space fields may depend on a certain feature. In that
> case, the field exits if the device has offered the corresponding
> feature,


So this implies for !VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ && VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, the config 
will look like:

struct virtio_net_config {
         u8 mac[6];
         le16 status;
         le16 mtu;
};


>   and may be read by the driver during feature negotiation, and
> accessed by the driver after the feature has been successfully
> negotiated. A shorthand for this is a statement that a field only
> exists if a certain feature bit is set."


I'm not sure using "shorthand" is good for the spec, at least we can 
limit the its scope only to the configuration space part.

Thanks


>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Cornelia Huck]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:29:07 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 2021/2/23 6:58 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:31:07 +0800
> > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 2021/2/23 6:04 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:  
> >>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:46:20 +0800
> >>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>> On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:  
> >>>>>> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:  
> >>>>>>> On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:  
> >>>>>>>> Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
> >>>>>>>> for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
> >>>>>>>> features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
> >>>>>>>> are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
> >>>>>>>> and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
> >>>>>>>> config space before features are set. For instance, when
> >>>>>>>> feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
> >>>>>>>> will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
> >>>>>>>> space before virtio features are set.  
> >>>>>>> This looks like a spec violation:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
> >>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
> >>>>>>> driver to use.
> >>>>>>> "
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Do we really want to workaround this?  
> >>>>>> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
> >>>>>> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
> >>>>>> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
> >>>>>> while now).  
> >>>>> Oh  you are right:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>>            if (!vdev->config->get) {
> >>>>>                    dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
> >>>>>                            __func__);
> >>>>>                    return -EINVAL;
> >>>>>            }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>            if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
> >>>>>                    return -EINVAL;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>            if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
> >>>>>                    int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
> >>>>>                                             offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
> >>>>>                                                      mtu));
> >>>>>                    if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
> >>>>>                            __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);  
> >>>> I wonder why not simply fail here?  
> >>> I think both failing or not accepting the feature can be argued to make
> >>> sense: "the device presented us with a mtu size that does not make
> >>> sense" would point to failing, "we cannot work with the mtu size that
> >>> the device presented us" would point to not negotiating the feature.
> >>>     
> >>>>     
> >>>>>            }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>            return 0;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And the spec says:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
> >>>>> 1. Reset the device.
> >>>>> 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
> >>>>> 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
> >>>>> 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
> >>>>> device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
> >>>>> fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
> >>>>> 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
> >>>>> 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
> >>>>> support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
> >>>>> 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
> >>>>> reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
> >>>>> 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
> >>>>> FEATURES_OK.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".  
> >>>> So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in
> >>>> the spec that has different implications.  
> >>> Before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver, I guess it means "the device
> >>> has offered the feature";  
> >>
> >> For me this part is ok since it clarify that it's the driver that set
> >> the bit.
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >>> during normal usage, it means "the feature
> >>> has been negotiated".  
> >> /?
> >>
> >> It looks to me the feature negotiation is done only after device set
> >> FEATURES_OK, or FEATURES_OK could be read from device status?  
> > I'd consider feature negotiation done when the driver reads FEATURES_OK
> > back from the status.  
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> >  
> >>  
> >>>    (This is a bit fuzzy for legacy mode.)  
> > ...because legacy does not have FEATURES_OK.
> >      
> >>
> >> The problem is the MTU description for example:
> >>
> >> "The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
> >> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set."
> >>
> >> It looks to me need to use "if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set by device".  
> > "offered by the device"? I don't think it should 'disappear' from the
> > config space if the driver won't use it. (Same for other config space
> > fields that are tied to feature bits.)  
> 
> 
> But what happens if e.g device doesn't offer VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU? It looks 
> to according to the spec there will be no mtu field.

I think so, yes.

> 
> And a more interesting case is VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered but 
> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU offered. To me, it means we don't have 
> max_virtqueue_pairs but it's not how the driver is wrote today.

That would be a bug, but it seems to me that the virtio-net driver
reads max_virtqueue_pairs conditionally and handles absence of the
feature correctly?

> 
> 
> >     
> >> Otherwise readers (at least for me), may think the MTU is only valid
> >> if driver set the bit.  
> > I think it would still be 'valid' in the sense that it exists and has
> > some value in there filled in by the device, but a driver reading it
> > without negotiating the feature would be buggy. (Like in the kernel
> > code above; the kernel not liking the value does not make the field
> > invalid.)  
> 
> 
> See Michael's reply, the spec allows read the config before setting 
> features.

Yes, the period prior to finishing negotiation is obviously special.

> 
> 
> >
> > Maybe a statement covering everything would be:
> >
> > "The following driver-read-only field mtu only exists if the device
> > offers VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and may be read by the driver during feature
> > negotiation and after VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU has been successfully
> > negotiated."
> >  
> >>  
> >>> Should we add a wording clarification to the spec?  
> >>
> >> I think so.  
> > Some clarification would be needed for each field that depends on a
> > feature; that would be quite verbose. Maybe we can get away with a
> > clarifying statement?
> >
> > "Some config space fields may depend on a certain feature. In that
> > case, the field exits if the device has offered the corresponding
> > feature,  
> 
> 
> So this implies for !VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ && VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, the config 
> will look like:
> 
> struct virtio_net_config {
>          u8 mac[6];
>          le16 status;
>          le16 mtu;
> };
> 

I agree.

> 
> >   and may be read by the driver during feature negotiation, and
> > accessed by the driver after the feature has been successfully
> > negotiated. A shorthand for this is a statement that a field only
> > exists if a certain feature bit is set."  
> 
> 
> I'm not sure using "shorthand" is good for the spec, at least we can 
> limit the its scope only to the configuration space part.

Maybe "a shorthand expression"?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Jason Wang]

On 2021/2/24 7:12 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:29:07 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2021/2/23 6:58 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:31:07 +0800
>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 2021/2/23 6:04 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:46:20 +0800
>>>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>      
>>>>>> On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
>>>>>>>>>> for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
>>>>>>>>>> features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
>>>>>>>>>> are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
>>>>>>>>>> and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
>>>>>>>>>> config space before features are set. For instance, when
>>>>>>>>>> feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
>>>>>>>>>> will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
>>>>>>>>>> space before virtio features are set.
>>>>>>>>> This looks like a spec violation:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>>>>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
>>>>>>>>> driver to use.
>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do we really want to workaround this?
>>>>>>>> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
>>>>>>>> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
>>>>>>>> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
>>>>>>>> while now).
>>>>>>> Oh  you are right:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>             if (!vdev->config->get) {
>>>>>>>                     dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
>>>>>>>                             __func__);
>>>>>>>                     return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>             }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
>>>>>>>                     return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>>>>>>>                     int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>>>>>>>                                              offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>>>>>>>                                                       mtu));
>>>>>>>                     if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>>>>>>>                             __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
>>>>>> I wonder why not simply fail here?
>>>>> I think both failing or not accepting the feature can be argued to make
>>>>> sense: "the device presented us with a mtu size that does not make
>>>>> sense" would point to failing, "we cannot work with the mtu size that
>>>>> the device presented us" would point to not negotiating the feature.
>>>>>      
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>             }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             return 0;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the spec says:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
>>>>>>> 1. Reset the device.
>>>>>>> 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
>>>>>>> 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
>>>>>>> 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
>>>>>>> device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
>>>>>>> fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
>>>>>>> 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
>>>>>>> 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
>>>>>>> support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
>>>>>>> 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
>>>>>>> reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
>>>>>>> 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
>>>>>>> FEATURES_OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".
>>>>>> So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in
>>>>>> the spec that has different implications.
>>>>> Before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver, I guess it means "the device
>>>>> has offered the feature";
>>>> For me this part is ok since it clarify that it's the driver that set
>>>> the bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>> during normal usage, it means "the feature
>>>>> has been negotiated".
>>>> /?
>>>>
>>>> It looks to me the feature negotiation is done only after device set
>>>> FEATURES_OK, or FEATURES_OK could be read from device status?
>>> I'd consider feature negotiation done when the driver reads FEATURES_OK
>>> back from the status.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>
>>>   
>>>>   
>>>>>     (This is a bit fuzzy for legacy mode.)
>>> ...because legacy does not have FEATURES_OK.
>>>       
>>>> The problem is the MTU description for example:
>>>>
>>>> "The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set."
>>>>
>>>> It looks to me need to use "if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set by device".
>>> "offered by the device"? I don't think it should 'disappear' from the
>>> config space if the driver won't use it. (Same for other config space
>>> fields that are tied to feature bits.)
>>
>> But what happens if e.g device doesn't offer VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU? It looks
>> to according to the spec there will be no mtu field.
> I think so, yes.
>
>> And a more interesting case is VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered but
>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU offered. To me, it means we don't have
>> max_virtqueue_pairs but it's not how the driver is wrote today.
> That would be a bug, but it seems to me that the virtio-net driver
> reads max_virtqueue_pairs conditionally and handles absence of the
> feature correctly?


Yes, see the avove codes:

         if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
                 int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
                                          offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
                                                   mtu));
                 if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
                         __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
         }

So it's probably too late to fix the driver.


>
>>
>>>      
>>>> Otherwise readers (at least for me), may think the MTU is only valid
>>>> if driver set the bit.
>>> I think it would still be 'valid' in the sense that it exists and has
>>> some value in there filled in by the device, but a driver reading it
>>> without negotiating the feature would be buggy. (Like in the kernel
>>> code above; the kernel not liking the value does not make the field
>>> invalid.)
>>
>> See Michael's reply, the spec allows read the config before setting
>> features.
> Yes, the period prior to finishing negotiation is obviously special.
>
>>
>>> Maybe a statement covering everything would be:
>>>
>>> "The following driver-read-only field mtu only exists if the device
>>> offers VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and may be read by the driver during feature
>>> negotiation and after VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU has been successfully
>>> negotiated."
>>>   
>>>>   
>>>>> Should we add a wording clarification to the spec?
>>>> I think so.
>>> Some clarification would be needed for each field that depends on a
>>> feature; that would be quite verbose. Maybe we can get away with a
>>> clarifying statement?
>>>
>>> "Some config space fields may depend on a certain feature. In that
>>> case, the field exits if the device has offered the corresponding
>>> feature,
>>
>> So this implies for !VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ && VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, the config
>> will look like:
>>
>> struct virtio_net_config {
>>           u8 mac[6];
>>           le16 status;
>>           le16 mtu;
>> };
>>
> I agree.


So consider it's probably too late to fix the driver which assumes some 
field are always persent, it looks to me need fix the spec do declare 
the fields are always existing instead.


>
>>>    and may be read by the driver during feature negotiation, and
>>> accessed by the driver after the feature has been successfully
>>> negotiated. A shorthand for this is a statement that a field only
>>> exists if a certain feature bit is set."
>>
>> I'm not sure using "shorthand" is good for the spec, at least we can
>> limit the its scope only to the configuration space part.
> Maybe "a shorthand expression"?


So the questions is should we use this for all over the spec or it will 
be only used in this speicifc part (device configuration).

Thanks



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Cornelia Huck]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:36:07 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 2021/2/24 7:12 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:29:07 +0800
> > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 2021/2/23 6:58 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:  
> >>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:31:07 +0800
> >>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:

> >>>> The problem is the MTU description for example:
> >>>>
> >>>> "The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
> >>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set."
> >>>>
> >>>> It looks to me need to use "if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set by device".  
> >>> "offered by the device"? I don't think it should 'disappear' from the
> >>> config space if the driver won't use it. (Same for other config space
> >>> fields that are tied to feature bits.)  
> >>
> >> But what happens if e.g device doesn't offer VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU? It looks
> >> to according to the spec there will be no mtu field.  
> > I think so, yes.
> >  
> >> And a more interesting case is VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered but
> >> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU offered. To me, it means we don't have
> >> max_virtqueue_pairs but it's not how the driver is wrote today.  
> > That would be a bug, but it seems to me that the virtio-net driver
> > reads max_virtqueue_pairs conditionally and handles absence of the
> > feature correctly?  
> 
> 
> Yes, see the avove codes:
> 
>          if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>                  int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>                                           offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>                                                    mtu));
>                  if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>                          __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
>          }
> 

Ouch, you're right. The virtio_cread accessors all operate on offsets
into a structure, it's just more obvious here.

> So it's probably too late to fix the driver.

It is never too late to fix a driver :)

It seems involved, though. We'd need different config space structures
based upon which set of features has been negotiated. It's not too bad
when features build upon each other and add fields at the end (this
should be fine right now, if the code remembered to check for the
feature), but can become ugly if an in-between field depends upon a
feature.

I guess we've been lucky that it seems to be an extremely uncommon
configuration.

> 
> 
> >  
> >>  
> >>>        
> >>>> Otherwise readers (at least for me), may think the MTU is only valid
> >>>> if driver set the bit.  
> >>> I think it would still be 'valid' in the sense that it exists and has
> >>> some value in there filled in by the device, but a driver reading it
> >>> without negotiating the feature would be buggy. (Like in the kernel
> >>> code above; the kernel not liking the value does not make the field
> >>> invalid.)  
> >>
> >> See Michael's reply, the spec allows read the config before setting
> >> features.  
> > Yes, the period prior to finishing negotiation is obviously special.
> >  
> >>  
> >>> Maybe a statement covering everything would be:
> >>>
> >>> "The following driver-read-only field mtu only exists if the device
> >>> offers VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and may be read by the driver during feature
> >>> negotiation and after VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU has been successfully
> >>> negotiated."
> >>>     
> >>>>     
> >>>>> Should we add a wording clarification to the spec?  
> >>>> I think so.  
> >>> Some clarification would be needed for each field that depends on a
> >>> feature; that would be quite verbose. Maybe we can get away with a
> >>> clarifying statement?
> >>>
> >>> "Some config space fields may depend on a certain feature. In that
> >>> case, the field exits if the device has offered the corresponding
> >>> feature,  
> >>
> >> So this implies for !VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ && VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, the config
> >> will look like:
> >>
> >> struct virtio_net_config {
> >>           u8 mac[6];
> >>           le16 status;
> >>           le16 mtu;
> >> };
> >>  
> > I agree.  
> 
> 
> So consider it's probably too late to fix the driver which assumes some 
> field are always persent, it looks to me need fix the spec do declare 
> the fields are always existing instead.

The problem with that is that it has been in the spec already, and a
compliant device that did not provide the fields without the features
would suddenly become non-compliant...

> 
> 
> >  
> >>>    and may be read by the driver during feature negotiation, and
> >>> accessed by the driver after the feature has been successfully
> >>> negotiated. A shorthand for this is a statement that a field only
> >>> exists if a certain feature bit is set."  
> >>
> >> I'm not sure using "shorthand" is good for the spec, at least we can
> >> limit the its scope only to the configuration space part.  
> > Maybe "a shorthand expression"?  
> 
> 
> So the questions is should we use this for all over the spec or it will 
> be only used in this speicifc part (device configuration).

For command structures and the like, "feature is set" should always
mean "feature has been negotiated"; I think config space is special
because the driver can read it before feature negotiation is finished,
so device configuration is probably the proper place for it.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:36:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2021/2/24 7:12 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:29:07 +0800
> > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 2021/2/23 6:58 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:31:07 +0800
> > > > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 2021/2/23 6:04 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:46:20 +0800
> > > > > > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
> > > > > > > > > > > for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
> > > > > > > > > > > features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
> > > > > > > > > > > are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
> > > > > > > > > > > and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
> > > > > > > > > > > config space before features are set. For instance, when
> > > > > > > > > > > feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
> > > > > > > > > > > will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
> > > > > > > > > > > space before virtio features are set.
> > > > > > > > > > This looks like a spec violation:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
> > > > > > > > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
> > > > > > > > > > driver to use.
> > > > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Do we really want to workaround this?
> > > > > > > > > Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
> > > > > > > > > host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
> > > > > > > > > should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
> > > > > > > > > while now).
> > > > > > > > Oh  you are right:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > >             if (!vdev->config->get) {
> > > > > > > >                     dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
> > > > > > > >                             __func__);
> > > > > > > >                     return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > >             }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >             if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
> > > > > > > >                     return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >             if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
> > > > > > > >                     int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
> > > > > > > >                                              offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
> > > > > > > >                                                       mtu));
> > > > > > > >                     if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
> > > > > > > >                             __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
> > > > > > > I wonder why not simply fail here?
> > > > > > I think both failing or not accepting the feature can be argued to make
> > > > > > sense: "the device presented us with a mtu size that does not make
> > > > > > sense" would point to failing, "we cannot work with the mtu size that
> > > > > > the device presented us" would point to not negotiating the feature.
> > > > > > > >             }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >             return 0;
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > And the spec says:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
> > > > > > > > 1. Reset the device.
> > > > > > > > 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
> > > > > > > > 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
> > > > > > > > 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
> > > > > > > > device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
> > > > > > > > fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
> > > > > > > > 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
> > > > > > > > 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
> > > > > > > > support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
> > > > > > > > 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
> > > > > > > > reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
> > > > > > > > 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
> > > > > > > > FEATURES_OK.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".
> > > > > > > So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in
> > > > > > > the spec that has different implications.
> > > > > > Before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver, I guess it means "the device
> > > > > > has offered the feature";
> > > > > For me this part is ok since it clarify that it's the driver that set
> > > > > the bit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > during normal usage, it means "the feature
> > > > > > has been negotiated".
> > > > > /?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It looks to me the feature negotiation is done only after device set
> > > > > FEATURES_OK, or FEATURES_OK could be read from device status?
> > > > I'd consider feature negotiation done when the driver reads FEATURES_OK
> > > > back from the status.
> > > 
> > > I agree.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > >     (This is a bit fuzzy for legacy mode.)
> > > > ...because legacy does not have FEATURES_OK.
> > > > > The problem is the MTU description for example:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
> > > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set."
> > > > > 
> > > > > It looks to me need to use "if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set by device".
> > > > "offered by the device"? I don't think it should 'disappear' from the
> > > > config space if the driver won't use it. (Same for other config space
> > > > fields that are tied to feature bits.)
> > > 
> > > But what happens if e.g device doesn't offer VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU? It looks
> > > to according to the spec there will be no mtu field.
> > I think so, yes.
> > 
> > > And a more interesting case is VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered but
> > > VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU offered. To me, it means we don't have
> > > max_virtqueue_pairs but it's not how the driver is wrote today.
> > That would be a bug, but it seems to me that the virtio-net driver
> > reads max_virtqueue_pairs conditionally and handles absence of the
> > feature correctly?
> 
> 
> Yes, see the avove codes:
> 
>         if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>                 int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>                                          offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>                                                   mtu));
>                 if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>                         __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
>         }
> 
> So it's probably too late to fix the driver.
> 

Confused. What is wrong with the above? It never reads the
field unless the feature has been offered by device.


> > 
> > > 
> > > > > Otherwise readers (at least for me), may think the MTU is only valid
> > > > > if driver set the bit.
> > > > I think it would still be 'valid' in the sense that it exists and has
> > > > some value in there filled in by the device, but a driver reading it
> > > > without negotiating the feature would be buggy. (Like in the kernel
> > > > code above; the kernel not liking the value does not make the field
> > > > invalid.)
> > > 
> > > See Michael's reply, the spec allows read the config before setting
> > > features.
> > Yes, the period prior to finishing negotiation is obviously special.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > Maybe a statement covering everything would be:
> > > > 
> > > > "The following driver-read-only field mtu only exists if the device
> > > > offers VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and may be read by the driver during feature
> > > > negotiation and after VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU has been successfully
> > > > negotiated."
> > > > > > Should we add a wording clarification to the spec?
> > > > > I think so.
> > > > Some clarification would be needed for each field that depends on a
> > > > feature; that would be quite verbose. Maybe we can get away with a
> > > > clarifying statement?
> > > > 
> > > > "Some config space fields may depend on a certain feature. In that
> > > > case, the field exits if the device has offered the corresponding
> > > > feature,
> > > 
> > > So this implies for !VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ && VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, the config
> > > will look like:
> > > 
> > > struct virtio_net_config {
> > >           u8 mac[6];
> > >           le16 status;
> > >           le16 mtu;
> > > };
> > > 
> > I agree.
> 
> 
> So consider it's probably too late to fix the driver which assumes some
> field are always persent, it looks to me need fix the spec do declare the
> fields are always existing instead.
> 
> 
> > 
> > > >    and may be read by the driver during feature negotiation, and
> > > > accessed by the driver after the feature has been successfully
> > > > negotiated. A shorthand for this is a statement that a field only
> > > > exists if a certain feature bit is set."
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure using "shorthand" is good for the spec, at least we can
> > > limit the its scope only to the configuration space part.
> > Maybe "a shorthand expression"?
> 
> 
> So the questions is should we use this for all over the spec or it will be
> only used in this speicifc part (device configuration).
> 
> Thanks
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Jason Wang]

On 2021/2/26 2:53 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:36:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2021/2/24 7:12 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:29:07 +0800
>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021/2/23 6:58 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:31:07 +0800
>>>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021/2/23 6:04 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:46:20 +0800
>>>>>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
>>>>>>>>>>>> for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
>>>>>>>>>>>> features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
>>>>>>>>>>>> are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
>>>>>>>>>>>> and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
>>>>>>>>>>>> config space before features are set. For instance, when
>>>>>>>>>>>> feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
>>>>>>>>>>>> will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
>>>>>>>>>>>> space before virtio features are set.
>>>>>>>>>>> This looks like a spec violation:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>>>>>>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
>>>>>>>>>>> driver to use.
>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do we really want to workaround this?
>>>>>>>>>> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
>>>>>>>>>> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
>>>>>>>>>> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
>>>>>>>>>> while now).
>>>>>>>>> Oh  you are right:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>              if (!vdev->config->get) {
>>>>>>>>>                      dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
>>>>>>>>>                              __func__);
>>>>>>>>>                      return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>              }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>              if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
>>>>>>>>>                      return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>              if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>>>>>>>>>                      int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>>>>>>>>>                                               offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>>>>>>>>>                                                        mtu));
>>>>>>>>>                      if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>>>>>>>>>                              __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
>>>>>>>> I wonder why not simply fail here?
>>>>>>> I think both failing or not accepting the feature can be argued to make
>>>>>>> sense: "the device presented us with a mtu size that does not make
>>>>>>> sense" would point to failing, "we cannot work with the mtu size that
>>>>>>> the device presented us" would point to not negotiating the feature.
>>>>>>>>>              }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>              return 0;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the spec says:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
>>>>>>>>> 1. Reset the device.
>>>>>>>>> 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
>>>>>>>>> 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
>>>>>>>>> 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
>>>>>>>>> device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
>>>>>>>>> fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
>>>>>>>>> 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
>>>>>>>>> 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
>>>>>>>>> support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
>>>>>>>>> 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
>>>>>>>>> reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
>>>>>>>>> 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
>>>>>>>>> FEATURES_OK.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".
>>>>>>>> So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in
>>>>>>>> the spec that has different implications.
>>>>>>> Before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver, I guess it means "the device
>>>>>>> has offered the feature";
>>>>>> For me this part is ok since it clarify that it's the driver that set
>>>>>> the bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> during normal usage, it means "the feature
>>>>>>> has been negotiated".
>>>>>> /?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks to me the feature negotiation is done only after device set
>>>>>> FEATURES_OK, or FEATURES_OK could be read from device status?
>>>>> I'd consider feature negotiation done when the driver reads FEATURES_OK
>>>>> back from the status.
>>>> I agree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>      (This is a bit fuzzy for legacy mode.)
>>>>> ...because legacy does not have FEATURES_OK.
>>>>>> The problem is the MTU description for example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks to me need to use "if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set by device".
>>>>> "offered by the device"? I don't think it should 'disappear' from the
>>>>> config space if the driver won't use it. (Same for other config space
>>>>> fields that are tied to feature bits.)
>>>> But what happens if e.g device doesn't offer VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU? It looks
>>>> to according to the spec there will be no mtu field.
>>> I think so, yes.
>>>
>>>> And a more interesting case is VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered but
>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU offered. To me, it means we don't have
>>>> max_virtqueue_pairs but it's not how the driver is wrote today.
>>> That would be a bug, but it seems to me that the virtio-net driver
>>> reads max_virtqueue_pairs conditionally and handles absence of the
>>> feature correctly?
>>
>> Yes, see the avove codes:
>>
>>          if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>>                  int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>>                                           offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>>                                                    mtu));
>>                  if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>>                          __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
>>          }
>>
>> So it's probably too late to fix the driver.
>>
> Confused. What is wrong with the above? It never reads the
> field unless the feature has been offered by device.


So the spec said:

"

The following driver-read-only field, max_virtqueue_pairs only exists if 
VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is set.

"

If I read this correctly, there will be no max_virtqueue_pairs field if 
the VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered by device? If yes the offsetof() 
violates what spec said.

Thanks


>
>
>>>>>> Otherwise readers (at least for me), may think the MTU is only valid
>>>>>> if driver set the bit.
>>>>> I think it would still be 'valid' in the sense that it exists and has
>>>>> some value in there filled in by the device, but a driver reading it
>>>>> without negotiating the feature would be buggy. (Like in the kernel
>>>>> code above; the kernel not liking the value does not make the field
>>>>> invalid.)
>>>> See Michael's reply, the spec allows read the config before setting
>>>> features.
>>> Yes, the period prior to finishing negotiation is obviously special.
>>>
>>>>> Maybe a statement covering everything would be:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The following driver-read-only field mtu only exists if the device
>>>>> offers VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and may be read by the driver during feature
>>>>> negotiation and after VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU has been successfully
>>>>> negotiated."
>>>>>>> Should we add a wording clarification to the spec?
>>>>>> I think so.
>>>>> Some clarification would be needed for each field that depends on a
>>>>> feature; that would be quite verbose. Maybe we can get away with a
>>>>> clarifying statement?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Some config space fields may depend on a certain feature. In that
>>>>> case, the field exits if the device has offered the corresponding
>>>>> feature,
>>>> So this implies for !VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ && VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, the config
>>>> will look like:
>>>>
>>>> struct virtio_net_config {
>>>>            u8 mac[6];
>>>>            le16 status;
>>>>            le16 mtu;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>> I agree.
>>
>> So consider it's probably too late to fix the driver which assumes some
>> field are always persent, it looks to me need fix the spec do declare the
>> fields are always existing instead.
>>
>>
>>>>>     and may be read by the driver during feature negotiation, and
>>>>> accessed by the driver after the feature has been successfully
>>>>> negotiated. A shorthand for this is a statement that a field only
>>>>> exists if a certain feature bit is set."
>>>> I'm not sure using "shorthand" is good for the spec, at least we can
>>>> limit the its scope only to the configuration space part.
>>> Maybe "a shorthand expression"?
>>
>> So the questions is should we use this for all over the spec or it will be
>> only used in this speicifc part (device configuration).
>>
>> Thanks
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 04:19:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2021/2/26 2:53 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:36:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2021/2/24 7:12 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:29:07 +0800
> > > > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On 2021/2/23 6:58 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:31:07 +0800
> > > > > > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2021/2/23 6:04 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:46:20 +0800
> > > > > > > > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
> > > > > > > > > > > > > config space before features are set. For instance, when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
> > > > > > > > > > > > > space before virtio features are set.
> > > > > > > > > > > > This looks like a spec violation:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
> > > > > > > > > > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > driver to use.
> > > > > > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do we really want to workaround this?
> > > > > > > > > > > Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
> > > > > > > > > > > host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
> > > > > > > > > > > should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
> > > > > > > > > > > while now).
> > > > > > > > > > Oh  you are right:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > >              if (!vdev->config->get) {
> > > > > > > > > >                      dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
> > > > > > > > > >                              __func__);
> > > > > > > > > >                      return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > >              }
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >              if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
> > > > > > > > > >                      return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >              if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
> > > > > > > > > >                      int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
> > > > > > > > > >                                               offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
> > > > > > > > > >                                                        mtu));
> > > > > > > > > >                      if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
> > > > > > > > > >                              __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
> > > > > > > > > I wonder why not simply fail here?
> > > > > > > > I think both failing or not accepting the feature can be argued to make
> > > > > > > > sense: "the device presented us with a mtu size that does not make
> > > > > > > > sense" would point to failing, "we cannot work with the mtu size that
> > > > > > > > the device presented us" would point to not negotiating the feature.
> > > > > > > > > >              }
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >              return 0;
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > And the spec says:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Reset the device.
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
> > > > > > > > > > 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
> > > > > > > > > > 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
> > > > > > > > > > device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
> > > > > > > > > > fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
> > > > > > > > > > 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
> > > > > > > > > > 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
> > > > > > > > > > support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
> > > > > > > > > > reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
> > > > > > > > > > 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
> > > > > > > > > > FEATURES_OK.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".
> > > > > > > > > So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in
> > > > > > > > > the spec that has different implications.
> > > > > > > > Before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver, I guess it means "the device
> > > > > > > > has offered the feature";
> > > > > > > For me this part is ok since it clarify that it's the driver that set
> > > > > > > the bit.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > during normal usage, it means "the feature
> > > > > > > > has been negotiated".
> > > > > > > /?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It looks to me the feature negotiation is done only after device set
> > > > > > > FEATURES_OK, or FEATURES_OK could be read from device status?
> > > > > > I'd consider feature negotiation done when the driver reads FEATURES_OK
> > > > > > back from the status.
> > > > > I agree.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > >      (This is a bit fuzzy for legacy mode.)
> > > > > > ...because legacy does not have FEATURES_OK.
> > > > > > > The problem is the MTU description for example:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > "The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
> > > > > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set."
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It looks to me need to use "if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set by device".
> > > > > > "offered by the device"? I don't think it should 'disappear' from the
> > > > > > config space if the driver won't use it. (Same for other config space
> > > > > > fields that are tied to feature bits.)
> > > > > But what happens if e.g device doesn't offer VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU? It looks
> > > > > to according to the spec there will be no mtu field.
> > > > I think so, yes.
> > > > 
> > > > > And a more interesting case is VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered but
> > > > > VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU offered. To me, it means we don't have
> > > > > max_virtqueue_pairs but it's not how the driver is wrote today.
> > > > That would be a bug, but it seems to me that the virtio-net driver
> > > > reads max_virtqueue_pairs conditionally and handles absence of the
> > > > feature correctly?
> > > 
> > > Yes, see the avove codes:
> > > 
> > >          if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
> > >                  int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
> > >                                           offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
> > >                                                    mtu));
> > >                  if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
> > >                          __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
> > >          }
> > > 
> > > So it's probably too late to fix the driver.
> > > 
> > Confused. What is wrong with the above? It never reads the
> > field unless the feature has been offered by device.
> 
> 
> So the spec said:
> 
> "
> 
> The following driver-read-only field, max_virtqueue_pairs only exists if
> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is set.
> 
> "
> 
> If I read this correctly, there will be no max_virtqueue_pairs field if the
> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered by device? If yes the offsetof() violates
> what spec said.
> 
> Thanks

I think that's a misunderstanding. This text was never intended to
imply that field offsets change beased on feature bits.
We had this pain with legacy and we never wanted to go back there.

This merely implies that without VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ the field
should not be accessed. Exists in the sense "is accessible to driver".

Let's just clarify that in the spec, job done.




> 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > > > Otherwise readers (at least for me), may think the MTU is only valid
> > > > > > > if driver set the bit.
> > > > > > I think it would still be 'valid' in the sense that it exists and has
> > > > > > some value in there filled in by the device, but a driver reading it
> > > > > > without negotiating the feature would be buggy. (Like in the kernel
> > > > > > code above; the kernel not liking the value does not make the field
> > > > > > invalid.)
> > > > > See Michael's reply, the spec allows read the config before setting
> > > > > features.
> > > > Yes, the period prior to finishing negotiation is obviously special.
> > > > 
> > > > > > Maybe a statement covering everything would be:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "The following driver-read-only field mtu only exists if the device
> > > > > > offers VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and may be read by the driver during feature
> > > > > > negotiation and after VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU has been successfully
> > > > > > negotiated."
> > > > > > > > Should we add a wording clarification to the spec?
> > > > > > > I think so.
> > > > > > Some clarification would be needed for each field that depends on a
> > > > > > feature; that would be quite verbose. Maybe we can get away with a
> > > > > > clarifying statement?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "Some config space fields may depend on a certain feature. In that
> > > > > > case, the field exits if the device has offered the corresponding
> > > > > > feature,
> > > > > So this implies for !VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ && VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, the config
> > > > > will look like:
> > > > > 
> > > > > struct virtio_net_config {
> > > > >            u8 mac[6];
> > > > >            le16 status;
> > > > >            le16 mtu;
> > > > > };
> > > > > 
> > > > I agree.
> > > 
> > > So consider it's probably too late to fix the driver which assumes some
> > > field are always persent, it looks to me need fix the spec do declare the
> > > fields are always existing instead.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > >     and may be read by the driver during feature negotiation, and
> > > > > > accessed by the driver after the feature has been successfully
> > > > > > negotiated. A shorthand for this is a statement that a field only
> > > > > > exists if a certain feature bit is set."
> > > > > I'm not sure using "shorthand" is good for the spec, at least we can
> > > > > limit the its scope only to the configuration space part.
> > > > Maybe "a shorthand expression"?
> > > 
> > > So the questions is should we use this for all over the spec or it will be
> > > only used in this speicifc part (device configuration).
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Jason Wang]

On 2021/3/1 5:25 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 04:19:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2021/2/26 2:53 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 12:36:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2021/2/24 7:12 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:29:07 +0800
>>>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021/2/23 6:58 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:31:07 +0800
>>>>>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021/2/23 6:04 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:46:20 +0800
>>>>>>>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/2/23 下午5:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:09:28AM -0800, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2021 8:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/2/19 7:54 下午, Si-Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Commit 452639a64ad8 ("vdpa: make sure set_features is invoked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for legacy") made an exception for legacy guests to reset
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features to 0, when config space is accessed before features
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are set. We should relieve the verify_min_features() check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and allow features reset to 0 for this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's worth noting that not just legacy guests could access
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config space before features are set. For instance, when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is advertised some modern driver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will try to access and validate the MTU present in the config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space before virtio features are set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This looks like a spec violation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set. This field specifies the maximum MTU for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we really want to workaround this?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't the commit 452639a64ad8 itself is a workaround for legacy guest?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the point is, since there's legacy guest we'd have to support, this
>>>>>>>>>>>> host side workaround is unavoidable. Although I agree the violating driver
>>>>>>>>>>>> should be fixed (yes, it's in today's upstream kernel which exists for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> while now).
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh  you are right:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> static int virtnet_validate(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>               if (!vdev->config->get) {
>>>>>>>>>>>                       dev_err(&vdev->dev, "%s failure: config access disabled\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>                               __func__);
>>>>>>>>>>>                       return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>>>               }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>               if (!virtnet_validate_features(vdev))
>>>>>>>>>>>                       return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>               if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>>>>>>>>>>>                       int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>>>>>>>>>>>                                                offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>>>>>>>>>>>                                                         mtu));
>>>>>>>>>>>                       if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>>>>>>>>>>>                               __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
>>>>>>>>>> I wonder why not simply fail here?
>>>>>>>>> I think both failing or not accepting the feature can be argued to make
>>>>>>>>> sense: "the device presented us with a mtu size that does not make
>>>>>>>>> sense" would point to failing, "we cannot work with the mtu size that
>>>>>>>>> the device presented us" would point to not negotiating the feature.
>>>>>>>>>>>               }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>               return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the spec says:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The driver MUST follow this sequence to initialize a device:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Reset the device.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Set the ACKNOWLEDGE status bit: the guest OS has noticed the device.
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Set the DRIVER status bit: the guest OS knows how to drive the device.
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Read device feature bits, and write the subset of feature bits understood by the OS and driver to the
>>>>>>>>>>> device. During this step the driver MAY read (but MUST NOT write) the device-specific configuration
>>>>>>>>>>> fields to check that it can support the device before accepting it.
>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Set the FEATURES_OK status bit. The driver MUST NOT accept new feature bits after this step.
>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Re-read device status to ensure the FEATURES_OK bit is still set: otherwise, the device does not
>>>>>>>>>>> support our subset of features and the device is unusable.
>>>>>>>>>>> 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues for the device, optional per-bus setup,
>>>>>>>>>>> reading and possibly writing the device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Item 4 on the list explicitly allows reading config space before
>>>>>>>>>>> FEATURES_OK.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I conclude that VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set means "set in device features".
>>>>>>>>>> So this probably need some clarification. "is set" is used many times in
>>>>>>>>>> the spec that has different implications.
>>>>>>>>> Before FEATURES_OK is set by the driver, I guess it means "the device
>>>>>>>>> has offered the feature";
>>>>>>>> For me this part is ok since it clarify that it's the driver that set
>>>>>>>> the bit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> during normal usage, it means "the feature
>>>>>>>>> has been negotiated".
>>>>>>>> /?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It looks to me the feature negotiation is done only after device set
>>>>>>>> FEATURES_OK, or FEATURES_OK could be read from device status?
>>>>>>> I'd consider feature negotiation done when the driver reads FEATURES_OK
>>>>>>> back from the status.
>>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       (This is a bit fuzzy for legacy mode.)
>>>>>>> ...because legacy does not have FEATURES_OK.
>>>>>>>> The problem is the MTU description for example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The following driver-read-only field, mtu only exists if
>>>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It looks to me need to use "if VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU is set by device".
>>>>>>> "offered by the device"? I don't think it should 'disappear' from the
>>>>>>> config space if the driver won't use it. (Same for other config space
>>>>>>> fields that are tied to feature bits.)
>>>>>> But what happens if e.g device doesn't offer VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU? It looks
>>>>>> to according to the spec there will be no mtu field.
>>>>> I think so, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And a more interesting case is VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered but
>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU offered. To me, it means we don't have
>>>>>> max_virtqueue_pairs but it's not how the driver is wrote today.
>>>>> That would be a bug, but it seems to me that the virtio-net driver
>>>>> reads max_virtqueue_pairs conditionally and handles absence of the
>>>>> feature correctly?
>>>> Yes, see the avove codes:
>>>>
>>>>           if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU)) {
>>>>                   int mtu = virtio_cread16(vdev,
>>>>                                            offsetof(struct virtio_net_config,
>>>>                                                     mtu));
>>>>                   if (mtu < MIN_MTU)
>>>>                           __virtio_clear_bit(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU);
>>>>           }
>>>>
>>>> So it's probably too late to fix the driver.
>>>>
>>> Confused. What is wrong with the above? It never reads the
>>> field unless the feature has been offered by device.
>>
>> So the spec said:
>>
>> "
>>
>> The following driver-read-only field, max_virtqueue_pairs only exists if
>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is set.
>>
>> "
>>
>> If I read this correctly, there will be no max_virtqueue_pairs field if the
>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered by device? If yes the offsetof() violates
>> what spec said.
>>
>> Thanks
> I think that's a misunderstanding. This text was never intended to
> imply that field offsets change beased on feature bits.
> We had this pain with legacy and we never wanted to go back there.
>
> This merely implies that without VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ the field
> should not be accessed. Exists in the sense "is accessible to driver".
>
> Let's just clarify that in the spec, job done.


Ok, agree. That will make things more eaiser.

Thanks


>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Otherwise readers (at least for me), may think the MTU is only valid
>>>>>>>> if driver set the bit.
>>>>>>> I think it would still be 'valid' in the sense that it exists and has
>>>>>>> some value in there filled in by the device, but a driver reading it
>>>>>>> without negotiating the feature would be buggy. (Like in the kernel
>>>>>>> code above; the kernel not liking the value does not make the field
>>>>>>> invalid.)
>>>>>> See Michael's reply, the spec allows read the config before setting
>>>>>> features.
>>>>> Yes, the period prior to finishing negotiation is obviously special.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe a statement covering everything would be:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The following driver-read-only field mtu only exists if the device
>>>>>>> offers VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU and may be read by the driver during feature
>>>>>>> negotiation and after VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU has been successfully
>>>>>>> negotiated."
>>>>>>>>> Should we add a wording clarification to the spec?
>>>>>>>> I think so.
>>>>>>> Some clarification would be needed for each field that depends on a
>>>>>>> feature; that would be quite verbose. Maybe we can get away with a
>>>>>>> clarifying statement?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Some config space fields may depend on a certain feature. In that
>>>>>>> case, the field exits if the device has offered the corresponding
>>>>>>> feature,
>>>>>> So this implies for !VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ && VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU, the config
>>>>>> will look like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct virtio_net_config {
>>>>>>             u8 mac[6];
>>>>>>             le16 status;
>>>>>>             le16 mtu;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree.
>>>> So consider it's probably too late to fix the driver which assumes some
>>>> field are always persent, it looks to me need fix the spec do declare the
>>>> fields are always existing instead.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>      and may be read by the driver during feature negotiation, and
>>>>>>> accessed by the driver after the feature has been successfully
>>>>>>> negotiated. A shorthand for this is a statement that a field only
>>>>>>> exists if a certain feature bit is set."
>>>>>> I'm not sure using "shorthand" is good for the spec, at least we can
>>>>>> limit the its scope only to the configuration space part.
>>>>> Maybe "a shorthand expression"?
>>>> So the questions is should we use this for all over the spec or it will be
>>>> only used in this speicifc part (device configuration).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Cornelia Huck]

On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:51:08 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 2021/3/1 5:25 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 04:19:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:  
> >> On 2021/2/26 2:53 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  

> >>> Confused. What is wrong with the above? It never reads the
> >>> field unless the feature has been offered by device.  
> >>
> >> So the spec said:
> >>
> >> "
> >>
> >> The following driver-read-only field, max_virtqueue_pairs only exists if
> >> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is set.
> >>
> >> "
> >>
> >> If I read this correctly, there will be no max_virtqueue_pairs field if the
> >> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered by device? If yes the offsetof() violates
> >> what spec said.
> >>
> >> Thanks  
> > I think that's a misunderstanding. This text was never intended to
> > imply that field offsets change beased on feature bits.
> > We had this pain with legacy and we never wanted to go back there.
> >
> > This merely implies that without VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ the field
> > should not be accessed. Exists in the sense "is accessible to driver".
> >
> > Let's just clarify that in the spec, job done.  
> 
> 
> Ok, agree. That will make things more eaiser.

Yes, that makes much more sense.

What about adding the following to the "Basic Facilities of a Virtio
Device/Device Configuration Space" section of the spec:

"If an optional configuration field does not exist, the corresponding
space is still present, but reserved."

(Do we need to specify what a device needs to do if the driver tries to
access a non-existing field? We cannot really make assumptions about
config space accesses; virtio-ccw can just copy a chunk of config space
that contains non-existing fields... I guess the device could ignore
writes and return zeroes on read?)

I've opened https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/98 for the
spec issues.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Jason Wang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3690 bytes --]


On 2021/3/2 8:08 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:51:08 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2021/3/1 5:25 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 04:19:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2021/2/26 2:53 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> Confused. What is wrong with the above? It never reads the
>>>>> field unless the feature has been offered by device.
>>>> So the spec said:
>>>>
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> The following driver-read-only field, max_virtqueue_pairs only exists if
>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is set.
>>>>
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> If I read this correctly, there will be no max_virtqueue_pairs field if the
>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered by device? If yes the offsetof() violates
>>>> what spec said.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> I think that's a misunderstanding. This text was never intended to
>>> imply that field offsets change beased on feature bits.
>>> We had this pain with legacy and we never wanted to go back there.
>>>
>>> This merely implies that without VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ the field
>>> should not be accessed. Exists in the sense "is accessible to driver".
>>>
>>> Let's just clarify that in the spec, job done.
>>
>> Ok, agree. That will make things more eaiser.
> Yes, that makes much more sense.
>
> What about adding the following to the "Basic Facilities of a Virtio
> Device/Device Configuration Space" section of the spec:
>
> "If an optional configuration field does not exist, the corresponding
> space is still present, but reserved."


This became interesting after re-reading some of the qemu codes.

E.g in virtio-net.c we had:

*static VirtIOFeature feature_sizes[] = {
     {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC,
      .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, mac)},
     {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS,
      .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, status)},
     {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ,
      .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, max_virtqueue_pairs)},
     {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU,
      .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, mtu)},
     {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_SPEED_DUPLEX,
      .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, duplex)},
     {.flags = (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS) | (1ULL << 
VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT),
      .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, supported_hash_types)},
     {}
};*

*It has a implict dependency chain. E.g MTU doesn't presnet if 
DUPLEX/RSS is not offered ...
*


>
> (Do we need to specify what a device needs to do if the driver tries to
> access a non-existing field? We cannot really make assumptions about
> config space accesses; virtio-ccw can just copy a chunk of config space
> that contains non-existing fields...


Right, it looks to me ccw doesn't depends on config len which is kind of 
interesting. I think the answer depends on the implementation of both 
transport and device:

Let's take virtio-net-pci as an example, it fills status unconditionally 
in virtio_net_set_config() even if VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS is not 
negotiated. So with the above feature_sizes:

1) if one of the MQ, MTU, DUPLEX or RSS is implemented, driver can still 
read status in this case
2) if none of the above four is negotied, driver can only read a 0xFF 
(virtio_config_readb())


> I guess the device could ignore
> writes and return zeroes on read?)


So consider the above, it might be too late to fix/clarify that in the 
spec on the expected behaviour of reading/writing non-exist fields.

Thanks


>
> I've opened https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/98 for the
> spec issues.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6251 bytes --]

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Cornelia Huck]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:01:01 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 2021/3/2 8:08 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:51:08 +0800
> > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 2021/3/1 5:25 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> >>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 04:19:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:  
> >>>> On 2021/2/26 2:53 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> >>>>> Confused. What is wrong with the above? It never reads the
> >>>>> field unless the feature has been offered by device.  
> >>>> So the spec said:
> >>>>
> >>>> "
> >>>>
> >>>> The following driver-read-only field, max_virtqueue_pairs only exists if
> >>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is set.
> >>>>
> >>>> "
> >>>>
> >>>> If I read this correctly, there will be no max_virtqueue_pairs field if the
> >>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered by device? If yes the offsetof() violates
> >>>> what spec said.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks  
> >>> I think that's a misunderstanding. This text was never intended to
> >>> imply that field offsets change beased on feature bits.
> >>> We had this pain with legacy and we never wanted to go back there.
> >>>
> >>> This merely implies that without VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ the field
> >>> should not be accessed. Exists in the sense "is accessible to driver".
> >>>
> >>> Let's just clarify that in the spec, job done.  
> >>
> >> Ok, agree. That will make things more eaiser.  
> > Yes, that makes much more sense.
> >
> > What about adding the following to the "Basic Facilities of a Virtio
> > Device/Device Configuration Space" section of the spec:
> >
> > "If an optional configuration field does not exist, the corresponding
> > space is still present, but reserved."  
> 
> 
> This became interesting after re-reading some of the qemu codes.
> 
> E.g in virtio-net.c we had:
> 
> *static VirtIOFeature feature_sizes[] = {
>      {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC,
>       .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, mac)},
>      {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS,
>       .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, status)},
>      {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ,
>       .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, max_virtqueue_pairs)},
>      {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU,
>       .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, mtu)},
>      {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_SPEED_DUPLEX,
>       .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, duplex)},
>      {.flags = (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS) | (1ULL << 
> VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT),
>       .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, supported_hash_types)},
>      {}
> };*
> 
> *It has a implict dependency chain. E.g MTU doesn't presnet if 
> DUPLEX/RSS is not offered ...
> *

But I think it covers everything up to the relevant field, no? So MTU
is included if we have the feature bit, even if we don't have
DUPLEX/RSS.

Given that a config space may be shorter (but must not collapse
non-existing fields), maybe a better wording would be:

"If an optional configuration field does not exist, the corresponding
space will still be present if it is not at the end of the
configuration space (i.e., further configuration fields exist.) This
implies that a given field, if it exists, is always at the same offset
from the beginning of the configuration space."


> >
> > (Do we need to specify what a device needs to do if the driver tries to
> > access a non-existing field? We cannot really make assumptions about
> > config space accesses; virtio-ccw can just copy a chunk of config space
> > that contains non-existing fields...  
> 
> 
> Right, it looks to me ccw doesn't depends on config len which is kind of 
> interesting. I think the answer depends on the implementation of both 
> transport and device:

(virtio-ccw is a bit odd, because channel I/O does not have the concept
of a config space and I needed to come up with something)

> 
> Let's take virtio-net-pci as an example, it fills status unconditionally 
> in virtio_net_set_config() even if VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS is not 
> negotiated. So with the above feature_sizes:
> 
> 1) if one of the MQ, MTU, DUPLEX or RSS is implemented, driver can still 
> read status in this case
> 2) if none of the above four is negotied, driver can only read a 0xFF 
> (virtio_config_readb())
> 
> 
> > I guess the device could ignore
> > writes and return zeroes on read?)  
> 
> 
> So consider the above, it might be too late to fix/clarify that in the 
> spec on the expected behaviour of reading/writing non-exist fields.

We could still advise behaviour via SHOULD, though I'm not sure it adds
much at this point in time.

It really feels a bit odd that a driver can still read and write fields
for features that it did not negotiate, but I fear we're stuck with it.

> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> >
> > I've opened https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/98 for the
> > spec issues.
> >  


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Jason Wang]

On 2021/3/3 4:29 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:01:01 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2021/3/2 8:08 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:51:08 +0800
>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 2021/3/1 5:25 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 04:19:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021/2/26 2:53 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>> Confused. What is wrong with the above? It never reads the
>>>>>>> field unless the feature has been offered by device.
>>>>>> So the spec said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following driver-read-only field, max_virtqueue_pairs only exists if
>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I read this correctly, there will be no max_virtqueue_pairs field if the
>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered by device? If yes the offsetof() violates
>>>>>> what spec said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> I think that's a misunderstanding. This text was never intended to
>>>>> imply that field offsets change beased on feature bits.
>>>>> We had this pain with legacy and we never wanted to go back there.
>>>>>
>>>>> This merely implies that without VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ the field
>>>>> should not be accessed. Exists in the sense "is accessible to driver".
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's just clarify that in the spec, job done.
>>>> Ok, agree. That will make things more eaiser.
>>> Yes, that makes much more sense.
>>>
>>> What about adding the following to the "Basic Facilities of a Virtio
>>> Device/Device Configuration Space" section of the spec:
>>>
>>> "If an optional configuration field does not exist, the corresponding
>>> space is still present, but reserved."
>>
>> This became interesting after re-reading some of the qemu codes.
>>
>> E.g in virtio-net.c we had:
>>
>> *static VirtIOFeature feature_sizes[] = {
>>       {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC,
>>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, mac)},
>>       {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS,
>>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, status)},
>>       {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ,
>>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, max_virtqueue_pairs)},
>>       {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU,
>>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, mtu)},
>>       {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_SPEED_DUPLEX,
>>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, duplex)},
>>       {.flags = (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS) | (1ULL <<
>> VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT),
>>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, supported_hash_types)},
>>       {}
>> };*
>>
>> *It has a implict dependency chain. E.g MTU doesn't presnet if
>> DUPLEX/RSS is not offered ...
>> *
> But I think it covers everything up to the relevant field, no? So MTU
> is included if we have the feature bit, even if we don't have
> DUPLEX/RSS.
>
> Given that a config space may be shorter (but must not collapse
> non-existing fields), maybe a better wording would be:
>
> "If an optional configuration field does not exist, the corresponding
> space will still be present if it is not at the end of the
> configuration space (i.e., further configuration fields exist.)


This should work but I think we need to define the end of configuration 
space first?


> This
> implies that a given field, if it exists, is always at the same offset
> from the beginning of the configuration space."
>
>
>>> (Do we need to specify what a device needs to do if the driver tries to
>>> access a non-existing field? We cannot really make assumptions about
>>> config space accesses; virtio-ccw can just copy a chunk of config space
>>> that contains non-existing fields...
>>
>> Right, it looks to me ccw doesn't depends on config len which is kind of
>> interesting. I think the answer depends on the implementation of both
>> transport and device:
> (virtio-ccw is a bit odd, because channel I/O does not have the concept
> of a config space and I needed to come up with something)


Ok.


>
>> Let's take virtio-net-pci as an example, it fills status unconditionally
>> in virtio_net_set_config() even if VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS is not
>> negotiated. So with the above feature_sizes:
>>
>> 1) if one of the MQ, MTU, DUPLEX or RSS is implemented, driver can still
>> read status in this case
>> 2) if none of the above four is negotied, driver can only read a 0xFF
>> (virtio_config_readb())
>>
>>
>>> I guess the device could ignore
>>> writes and return zeroes on read?)
>>
>> So consider the above, it might be too late to fix/clarify that in the
>> spec on the expected behaviour of reading/writing non-exist fields.
> We could still advise behaviour via SHOULD, though I'm not sure it adds
> much at this point in time.
>
> It really feels a bit odd that a driver can still read and write fields
> for features that it did not negotiate, but I fear we're stuck with it.


Yes, since the device (at least virtio-pci) implment thing like this.

Thanks


>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>> I've opened https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/98 for the
>>> spec issues.
>>>   
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Cornelia Huck]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:24:16 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 2021/3/3 4:29 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:01:01 +0800
> > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 2021/3/2 8:08 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:  
> >>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:51:08 +0800
> >>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>> On 2021/3/1 5:25 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 04:19:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:  
> >>>>>> On 2021/2/26 2:53 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:  
> >>>>>>> Confused. What is wrong with the above? It never reads the
> >>>>>>> field unless the feature has been offered by device.  
> >>>>>> So the spec said:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The following driver-read-only field, max_virtqueue_pairs only exists if
> >>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is set.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If I read this correctly, there will be no max_virtqueue_pairs field if the
> >>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered by device? If yes the offsetof() violates
> >>>>>> what spec said.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks  
> >>>>> I think that's a misunderstanding. This text was never intended to
> >>>>> imply that field offsets change beased on feature bits.
> >>>>> We had this pain with legacy and we never wanted to go back there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This merely implies that without VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ the field
> >>>>> should not be accessed. Exists in the sense "is accessible to driver".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let's just clarify that in the spec, job done.  
> >>>> Ok, agree. That will make things more eaiser.  
> >>> Yes, that makes much more sense.
> >>>
> >>> What about adding the following to the "Basic Facilities of a Virtio
> >>> Device/Device Configuration Space" section of the spec:
> >>>
> >>> "If an optional configuration field does not exist, the corresponding
> >>> space is still present, but reserved."  
> >>
> >> This became interesting after re-reading some of the qemu codes.
> >>
> >> E.g in virtio-net.c we had:
> >>
> >> *static VirtIOFeature feature_sizes[] = {
> >>       {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC,
> >>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, mac)},
> >>       {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS,
> >>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, status)},
> >>       {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ,
> >>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, max_virtqueue_pairs)},
> >>       {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU,
> >>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, mtu)},
> >>       {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_SPEED_DUPLEX,
> >>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, duplex)},
> >>       {.flags = (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS) | (1ULL <<
> >> VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT),
> >>        .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, supported_hash_types)},
> >>       {}
> >> };*
> >>
> >> *It has a implict dependency chain. E.g MTU doesn't presnet if
> >> DUPLEX/RSS is not offered ...
> >> *  
> > But I think it covers everything up to the relevant field, no? So MTU
> > is included if we have the feature bit, even if we don't have
> > DUPLEX/RSS.
> >
> > Given that a config space may be shorter (but must not collapse
> > non-existing fields), maybe a better wording would be:
> >
> > "If an optional configuration field does not exist, the corresponding
> > space will still be present if it is not at the end of the
> > configuration space (i.e., further configuration fields exist.)  
> 
> 
> This should work but I think we need to define the end of configuration 
> space first?

What about sidestepping this:

"...the corresponding space will still be present, unless no further
configuration fields exist."

?

> 
> > This
> > implies that a given field, if it exists, is always at the same offset
> > from the beginning of the configuration space."


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow reset to zero

[Jason Wang]

On 2021/3/4 9:50 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:24:16 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2021/3/3 4:29 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:01:01 +0800
>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 2021/3/2 8:08 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:51:08 +0800
>>>>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>      
>>>>>> On 2021/3/1 5:25 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 04:19:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021/2/26 2:53 上午, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Confused. What is wrong with the above? It never reads the
>>>>>>>>> field unless the feature has been offered by device.
>>>>>>>> So the spec said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following driver-read-only field, max_virtqueue_pairs only exists if
>>>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is set.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I read this correctly, there will be no max_virtqueue_pairs field if the
>>>>>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ is not offered by device? If yes the offsetof() violates
>>>>>>>> what spec said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> I think that's a misunderstanding. This text was never intended to
>>>>>>> imply that field offsets change beased on feature bits.
>>>>>>> We had this pain with legacy and we never wanted to go back there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This merely implies that without VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ the field
>>>>>>> should not be accessed. Exists in the sense "is accessible to driver".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's just clarify that in the spec, job done.
>>>>>> Ok, agree. That will make things more eaiser.
>>>>> Yes, that makes much more sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about adding the following to the "Basic Facilities of a Virtio
>>>>> Device/Device Configuration Space" section of the spec:
>>>>>
>>>>> "If an optional configuration field does not exist, the corresponding
>>>>> space is still present, but reserved."
>>>> This became interesting after re-reading some of the qemu codes.
>>>>
>>>> E.g in virtio-net.c we had:
>>>>
>>>> *static VirtIOFeature feature_sizes[] = {
>>>>        {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC,
>>>>         .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, mac)},
>>>>        {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS,
>>>>         .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, status)},
>>>>        {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ,
>>>>         .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, max_virtqueue_pairs)},
>>>>        {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_MTU,
>>>>         .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, mtu)},
>>>>        {.flags = 1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_SPEED_DUPLEX,
>>>>         .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, duplex)},
>>>>        {.flags = (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS) | (1ULL <<
>>>> VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT),
>>>>         .end = endof(struct virtio_net_config, supported_hash_types)},
>>>>        {}
>>>> };*
>>>>
>>>> *It has a implict dependency chain. E.g MTU doesn't presnet if
>>>> DUPLEX/RSS is not offered ...
>>>> *
>>> But I think it covers everything up to the relevant field, no? So MTU
>>> is included if we have the feature bit, even if we don't have
>>> DUPLEX/RSS.
>>>
>>> Given that a config space may be shorter (but must not collapse
>>> non-existing fields), maybe a better wording would be:
>>>
>>> "If an optional configuration field does not exist, the corresponding
>>> space will still be present if it is not at the end of the
>>> configuration space (i.e., further configuration fields exist.)
>>
>> This should work but I think we need to define the end of configuration
>> space first?
> What about sidestepping this:
>
> "...the corresponding space will still be present, unless no further
> configuration fields exist."
>
> ?


It might work. (I wonder maybe we can give some example in the spec).

Thanks


>
>>> This
>>> implies that a given field, if it exists, is always at the same offset
>>> from the beginning of the configuration space."


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org