Message-ID: <d5aef112-0828-6b79-4bce-753d3cd496c1@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 12:17:56 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Cc:     Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "bcrl@...ck.org" <bcrl@...ck.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@...tfour.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, joro@...tes.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        "songmuchun@...edance.com" <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] Documentation: Add documentation for VDUSE


在 2021/7/7 下午11:54, Stefan Hajnoczi 写道:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 05:24:08PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> 在 2021/7/7 下午4:55, Stefan Hajnoczi 写道:
>>> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:43:28AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> 在 2021/7/7 上午1:11, Stefan Hajnoczi 写道:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 09:08:26PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 6:15 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 10:34:33AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>> 在 2021/7/5 下午8:49, Stefan Hajnoczi 写道:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 11:36:15AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 在 2021/7/4 下午5:49, Yongji Xie 写道:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I get you now. Since the VIRTIO specification says "Device
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration space is generally used for rarely-changing or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> initialization-time parameters". I assume the VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ioctl should not be called frequently.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The spec uses MUST and other terms to define the precise requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here the language (especially the word "generally") is weaker and means
>>>>>>>>>>>> there may be exceptions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another type of access that doesn't work with the VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG
>>>>>>>>>>>> approach is reads that have side-effects. For example, imagine a field
>>>>>>>>>>>> containing an error code if the device encounters a problem unrelated to
>>>>>>>>>>>> a specific virtqueue request. Reading from this field resets the error
>>>>>>>>>>>> code to 0, saving the driver an extra configuration space write access
>>>>>>>>>>>> and possibly race conditions. It isn't possible to implement those
>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics suing VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG. It's another corner case, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes me think that the interface does not allow full VIRTIO semantics.
>>>>>>>>>> Note that though you're correct, my understanding is that config space is
>>>>>>>>>> not suitable for this kind of error propagating. And it would be very hard
>>>>>>>>>> to implement such kind of semantic in some transports.  Virtqueue should be
>>>>>>>>>> much better. As Yong Ji quoted, the config space is used for
>>>>>>>>>> "rarely-changing or intialization-time parameters".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. I will use VDUSE_DEV_GET_CONFIG in the next version. And to
>>>>>>>>>>> handle the message failure, I'm going to add a return value to
>>>>>>>>>>> virtio_config_ops.get() and virtio_cread_* API so that the error can
>>>>>>>>>>> be propagated to the virtio device driver. Then the virtio-blk device
>>>>>>>>>>> driver can be modified to handle that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jason and Stefan, what do you think of this way?
>>>>>>>>> Why does VDUSE_DEV_GET_CONFIG need to support an error return value?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The VIRTIO spec provides no way for the device to report errors from
>>>>>>>>> config space accesses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The QEMU virtio-pci implementation returns -1 from invalid
>>>>>>>>> virtio_config_read*() and silently discards virtio_config_write*()
>>>>>>>>> accesses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> VDUSE can take the same approach with
>>>>>>>>> VDUSE_DEV_GET_CONFIG/VDUSE_DEV_SET_CONFIG.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to stick to the current assumption thich get_config won't fail.
>>>>>>>>>> That is to say,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) maintain a config in the kernel, make sure the config space read can
>>>>>>>>>> always succeed
>>>>>>>>>> 2) introduce an ioctl for the vduse usersapce to update the config space.
>>>>>>>>>> 3) we can synchronize with the vduse userspace during set_config
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does this work?
>>>>>>>>> I noticed that caching is also allowed by the vhost-user protocol
>>>>>>>>> messages (QEMU's docs/interop/vhost-user.rst), but the device doesn't
>>>>>>>>> know whether or not caching is in effect. The interface you outlined
>>>>>>>>> above requires caching.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there a reason why the host kernel vDPA code needs to cache the
>>>>>>>>> configuration space?
>>>>>>>> Because:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Kernel can not wait forever in get_config(), this is the major difference
>>>>>>>> with vhost-user.
>>>>>>> virtio_cread() can sleep:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      #define virtio_cread(vdev, structname, member, ptr)                     \
>>>>>>>              do {                                                            \
>>>>>>>                      typeof(((structname*)0)->member) virtio_cread_v;        \
>>>>>>>                                                                              \
>>>>>>>                      might_sleep();                                          \
>>>>>>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which code path cannot sleep?
>>>>>> Well, it can sleep but it can't sleep forever. For VDUSE, a
>>>>>> buggy/malicious userspace may refuse to respond to the get_config.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks to me the ideal case, with the current virtio spec, for VDUSE is to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) maintain the device and its state in the kernel, userspace may sync
>>>>>> with the kernel device via ioctls
>>>>>> 2) offload the datapath (virtqueue) to the userspace
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems more robust and safe than simply relaying everything to
>>>>>> userspace and waiting for its response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we know for sure this model can work, an example is TUN/TAP:
>>>>>> netdevice is abstracted in the kernel and datapath is done via
>>>>>> sendmsg()/recvmsg().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maintaining the config in the kernel follows this model and it can
>>>>>> simplify the device generation implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For config space write, it requires more thought but fortunately it's
>>>>>> not commonly used. So VDUSE can choose to filter out the
>>>>>> device/features that depends on the config write.
>>>>> This is the problem. There are other messages like SET_FEATURES where I
>>>>> guess we'll face the same challenge.
>>>> Probably not, userspace device can tell the kernel about the device_features
>>>> and mandated_features during creation, and the feature negotiation could be
>>>> done purely in the kernel without bothering the userspace.
>>
>> (For some reason I drop the list accidentally, adding them back, sorry)
>>
>>
>>> Sorry, I confused the messages. I meant SET_STATUS. It's a synchronous
>>> interface where the driver waits for the device.
>>
>> It depends on how we define "synchronous" here. If I understand correctly,
>> the spec doesn't expect there will be any kind of failure for the operation
>> of set_status itself.
>>
>> Instead, anytime it want any synchronization, it should be done via
>> get_status():
>>
>> 1) re-read device status to make sure FEATURES_OK is set during feature
>> negotiation
>> 2) re-read device status to be 0 to make sure the device has finish the
>> reset
>>
>>
>>> VDUSE currently doesn't wait for the device emulation process to handle
>>> this message (no reply is needed) but I think this is a mistake because
>>> VDUSE is not following the VIRTIO device model.
>>
>> With the trick that is done for FEATURES_OK above, I think we don't need to
>> wait for the reply.
>>
>> If userspace takes too long to respond, it can be detected since
>> get_status() doesn't return the expected value for long time.
>>
>> And for the case that needs a timeout, we probably can use NEEDS_RESET.
> I think you're right. get_status is the synchronization point, not
> set_status.
>
> Currently there is no VDUSE GET_STATUS message. The
> VDUSE_START/STOP_DATAPLANE messages could be changed to SET_STATUS so
> that the device emulation program can participate in emulating the
> Device Status field.


I'm not sure I get this, but it is what has been done?

+static void vduse_vdpa_set_status(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, u8 status)
+{
+    struct vduse_dev *dev = vdpa_to_vduse(vdpa);
+    bool started = !!(status & VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_DRIVER_OK);
+
+    dev->status = status;
+
+    if (dev->started == started)
+        return;
+
+    dev->started = started;
+    if (dev->started) {
+        vduse_dev_start_dataplane(dev);
+    } else {
+        vduse_dev_reset(dev);
+        vduse_dev_stop_dataplane(dev);
+    }
+}


But the looks not correct:

1) !DRIVER_OK doesn't means a reset?
2) Need to deal with FEATURES_OK

Thanks


>   This change could affect VDUSE's VIRTIO feature
> interface since the device emulation program can reject features by not
> setting FEATURES_OK.
>
> Stefan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists