[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB4723E09C948B92912C796BEAD4649@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2023 11:11:54 +0000
From: Alvaro Karsz <alvaro.karsz@...id-run.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] virtio-net: reject small vring sizes
> > So, let's add some funky flags in virtio device to block out
> > features, have core compare these before and after,
> > detect change, reset and retry?
>
> In the virtnet case, we'll decide which features to block based on the ring size.
> 2 < ring < MAX_FRAGS + 2 -> BLOCK GRO + MRG_RXBUF
> ring < 2 -> BLOCK GRO + MRG_RXBUF + CTRL_VQ
>
> So we'll need a new virtio callback instead of flags.
>
> Furthermore, other virtio drivers may decide which features to block based on parameters different than ring size (I don't have a good example at the moment).
> So maybe we should leave it to the driver to handle (during probe), > and offer a virtio core function to re-negotiate the features?
>
> In the solution I'm working on, I expose a new virtio core function that resets the device and renegotiates the received features.
> + A new virtio_config_ops callback peek_vqs_len to peek at the VQ lengths before calling find_vqs. (The callback must be called after the features negotiation)
>
> So, the flow is something like:
>
> * Super early in virtnet probe, we peek at the VQ lengths and decide if we are
> using small vrings, if so, we reset and renegotiate the features.
> * We continue normally and create the VQs.
> * We check if the created rings are small.
> If they are and some blocked features were negotiated anyway (may occur if
> the re-negotiation fails, or if the transport has no implementation for
> peek_vqs_len), we fail probe.
Small fix: if the re-negotiation fails, we fail probe immediately.
The only way to negotiate blocked features with a small vring is if the transport has no implementation for peek_vqs_len.
> If the ring is small and the features are ok, we mark the virtnet device as
> vring_small and fixup some variables.
>
>
> peek_vqs_len is needed because we must know the VQ length before calling init_vqs.
>
> During virtnet_find_vqs we check the following:
> vi->has_cvq
> vi->big_packets
> vi->mergeable_rx_bufs
>
> But these will change if the ring is small..
>
> (Of course, another solution will be to re-negotiate features after init_vqs, but this will make a big mess, tons of things to clean and reconfigure)
>
>
> The 2 < ring < MAX_FRAGS + 2 part is ready, I have tested a few cases and it is working.
>
> I'm considering splitting the effort into 2 series.
> A 2 < ring < MAX_FRAGS + 2 series, and a follow up series with the ring < 2 case.
>
> I'm also thinking about sending the first series as an RFC soon, so it will be more broadly tested.
>
> What do you think?
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists