linux-kernel - Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set

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: <20210304145000.149706ae.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Mar 2021 14:50:00 +0100
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>, elic@...dia.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: set_features should allow
 reset to zero

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:24:16 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.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@...hat.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@...hat.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."