linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 5/8] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170713210819-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2017 23:19:22 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, david@...hat.com, cornelia.huck@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        aarcange@...hat.com, amit.shah@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        liliang.opensource@...il.com, virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, quan.xu@...yun.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 5/8] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_SG

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 03:42:35PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> On 07/12/2017 09:56 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 
> > So the way I see it, there are several issues:
> > 
> > - internal wait - forces multiple APIs like kick/kick_sync
> >    note how kick_sync can fail but your code never checks return code
> > - need to re-write the last descriptor - might not work
> >    for alternative layouts which always expose descriptors
> >    immediately
> 
> Probably it wasn't clear. Please let me explain the two functions here:
> 
> 1) virtqueue_add_chain_desc(vq, head_id, prev_id,..):
> grabs a desc from the vq and inserts it to the chain tail (which is indexed
> by
> prev_id, probably better to call it tail_id). Then, the new added desc
> becomes
> the tail (i.e. the last desc). The _F_NEXT flag is cleared for each desc
> when it's
> added to the chain, and set when another desc comes to follow later.

And this only works if there are multiple rings like
avail + descriptor ring.
It won't work e.g. with the proposed new layout where
writing out a descriptor exposes it immediately.

> 2) virtqueue_add_chain(vq, head_id,..): expose the chain to the other end.
> 
> So, if people want to add a desc and immediately expose it to the other end,
> i.e. build a single desc chain, they can just add and expose:
> 
> virtqueue_add_chain_desc(..);
> virtqueue_add_chain(..,head_id);
> 
> Would you see any issues here?

The way the new APIs poll used ring internally.

> 
> > - some kind of iterator type would be nicer instead of
> >    maintaining head/prev explicitly
> 
> Why would we need to iterate the chain?

In your patches prev/tail are iterators - they keep track of
where you are in the chain.

> I think it would be simpler to use
> a wrapper struct:
> 
> struct virtqueue_desc_chain {
>     unsigned int head;  // head desc id of the chain
>     unsigned int tail;     // tail desc id of the chain
> }
> 
> The new desc will be put to desc[tail].next, and we don't need to walk
> from the head desc[head].next when inserting a new desc to the chain, right?
> 
> 
> > 
> > As for the use, it would be better to do
> > 
> > if (!add_next(vq, ...)) {
> > 	add_last(vq, ...)
> > 	kick
> > 	wait
> > }
> 
> "!add_next(vq, ...)" means that the vq is full?


No - it means there's only 1 entry left for the last descriptor.


> If so, what would add_last()
> do then?
> 
> > Using VIRTQUEUE_DESC_ID_INIT seems to avoid a branch in the driver, but
> > in fact it merely puts the branch in the virtio code.
> > 
> 
> Actually it wasn't intended to improve performance. It is used to indicate
> the "init" state
> of the chain. So, when virtqueue_add_chain_desc(, head_id,..) finds head
> id=INIT, it will
> assign the grabbed desc id to &head_id. In some sense, it is equivalent to
> add_first().
> 
> Do you have a different opinion here?
> 
> Best,
> Wei
> 

It is but let's make it explicit here - an API function is better
than a special value.

-- 
MST