Re: [PATCH 5/6] vduse: add F_QUEUE_READY feature

[Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 5:09 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 3:35 PM Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 3:44 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 3:28 PM Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 5:00 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 4:15 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
> > > > > <eperezma@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 3:17 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 2:26 PM Eugenio Perez Martin
> > > > > > > <eperezma@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 3:12 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 8:45 PM Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Add the VDUSE_F_QUEUE_READY feature flag. This allows the kernel module
> > > > > > > > > > to explicitly signal userspace when a specific virtqueue has been
> > > > > > > > > > enabled.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In scenarios like Live Migration of VirtIO net devices, the dataplane
> > > > > > > > > > starts after the control virtqueue allowing QEMU to apply configuration
> > > > > > > > > > in the destination device.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > >  drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > > > > > >  include/uapi/linux/vduse.h         | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > >  2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> > > > > > > > > > index e7da69c2ad71..1d93b540db4d 100644
> > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > > > > > > > > >   */
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  #include "linux/virtio_net.h"
> > > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/bits.h>
> > > > > > > > > >  #include <linux/cleanup.h>
> > > > > > > > > >  #include <linux/init.h>
> > > > > > > > > >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -53,7 +54,7 @@
> > > > > > > > > >  #define IRQ_UNBOUND -1
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  /* Supported VDUSE features */
> > > > > > > > > > -static const uint64_t vduse_features;
> > > > > > > > > > +static const uint64_t vduse_features = BIT_U64(VDUSE_F_QUEUE_READY);
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  /*
> > > > > > > > > >   * VDUSE instance have not asked the vduse API version, so assume 0.
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -120,6 +121,7 @@ struct vduse_dev {
> > > > > > > > > >         char *name;
> > > > > > > > > >         struct mutex lock;
> > > > > > > > > >         spinlock_t msg_lock;
> > > > > > > > > > +       u64 vduse_features;
> > > > > > > > > >         u64 msg_unique;
> > > > > > > > > >         u32 msg_timeout;
> > > > > > > > > >         wait_queue_head_t waitq;
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -619,7 +621,30 @@ static void vduse_vdpa_set_vq_ready(struct vdpa_device *vdpa,
> > > > > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > > > > >         struct vduse_dev *dev = vdpa_to_vduse(vdpa);
> > > > > > > > > >         struct vduse_virtqueue *vq = dev->vqs[idx];
> > > > > > > > > > +       struct vduse_dev_msg msg = { 0 };
> > > > > > > > > > +       int r;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +       if (!(dev->vduse_features & BIT_U64(VDUSE_F_QUEUE_READY)))
> > > > > > > > > > +               goto out;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +       msg.req.type = VDUSE_SET_VQ_READY;
> > > > > > > > > > +       msg.req.vq_ready.num = idx;
> > > > > > > > > > +       msg.req.vq_ready.ready = !!ready;
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +       r = vduse_dev_msg_sync(dev, &msg);
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +       if (r < 0) {
> > > > > > > > > > +               dev_dbg(&vdpa->dev, "device refuses to set vq %u ready %u",
> > > > > > > > > > +                       idx, ready);
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +               /* We can't do better than break the device in this case */
> > > > > > > > > > +               spin_lock(&dev->msg_lock);
> > > > > > > > > > +               vduse_dev_broken(dev);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This has been done by vduse_dev_msg_sync().
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is done by msg_sync() when userland does not reply in a
> > > > > > > > timeframe, but not when userland replies with VDUSE_REQ_RESULT_FAILED.
> > > > > > > > Should I add a comment?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If this is not specific to Q_READY, I think we need to move it to
> > > > > > > msg_sync() as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's specific to Q_READY for me, as it's the request that returns void
> > > > > > and has no possibility to inform of an error.
> > > > >
> > > > > I may miss something, I mean why consider the failure of Q_READY to be
> > > > > more serious than the failure of other commands (e.g set_status()).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not considering the failure of Q_READY more serious than any other
> > > > failure. I'm breaking the device here as I cannot return the error to
> > > > the vDPA driver: This function returns void.
> > >
> > > Yes, and set_status() return void as well.
> > >
> > > void virtio_add_status(struct virtio_device *dev, unsigned int status)
> > > {
> > >         might_sleep();
> > > =>      dev->config->set_status(dev, dev->config->get_status(dev) | status);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I'm not saying all of the other users of vduse_dev_msg_sync don't
> > ignore the return code of the userland VDUSE instance. I'm saying that
> > we have cases where it is not ignored and the driver can react from
> > the error. After a fast look for them:
> >
> > 1) Case vhost_vdpa -> VHOST_GET_VRING_BASE -> ops->get_vq_state.
> > 2) Case vhost_vdpa -> ops->vduse_vdpa_set_map -> vduse_dev_update_iotlb
> >
> > If the userland VDUSE instance returns an error, -EIO is propagated to
> > vhost_vdpa user, and both can react and continue operating normally.
> > If we break the device, the same two userlands apps see a totally
> > different behavior: The device is totally unusable from that moment.
> >
> > Do we really want to break the device from the moment that VDUSE
> > instance returns an error in these conditions, and do it in an user
> > visible change?
>
> Ok, I think you worries about that if we do it for set_status() it
> might break userspace. That makes sense.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > We can make the function return a bool or int, and then make
> > > > vhost_vdpa and virtio_vdpa react to that error.  QEMU is already
> > > > prepared for VHOST_VDPA_SET_VRING_ENABLE to return an error, as it is
> > > > an ioctl,
> > >
> > > But we did:
> > >
> > >         case VHOST_VDPA_SET_VRING_ENABLE:
> > >                 if (copy_from_user(&s, argp, sizeof(s)))
> > >                         return -EFAULT;
> > >                 ops->set_vq_ready(vdpa, idx, s.num);
> > >                 return 0;
> > >
> > > So the failure come from copy_from_user()
> > >
> >
> > Yes. Let me rewrite it as:
> >
> > We can make ops->set_vq_ready return a bool or int, and then make
> > vhost_vdpa react to that error. The driver virtio_vdpa already checks
> > the same by calling get_vq_ready, but there is no equivalent in
> > vhost_vdpa. I can set a comment explaining the two methods for
> > checking the error of the call. QEMU is already prepared for handling
> > the return of an error from VHOST_VDPA_SET_VRING_ENABLE, as the ioctl
> > already returns errors like -EFAULT, and hopefully the rest of the
> > users of VHOST_VDPA_SET_VRING_ENABLE are also prepared.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Should I change vdpa_config_ops->set_vq_ready so it can return an
> > > > error, as a prerequisite of this series?
> > >
> > > Or it would be better to leave the breaking of device on
> > > REQ_RESULT_FAILED for future investigation (not blocking this series).
> > >
> >
> > I'd say it's the best option, yes. But my vote is to make
> > VHOST_VDPA_SET_VRING_ENABLE more robust actually :).
>
> Ok, I think then it would be better to use a separate patch in this series?
>

Yes, I'm ok with leaving this as a change for future series.

Thanks!