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.