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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2021/2/23 6:58 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:31:07 +0800
> > Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 2021/2/23 6:04 下午, Cornelia Huck wrote:  
> >>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:46:20 +0800
> >>> Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> 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"?