netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] virtio: Define bit numbers for device independent features

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220217082600.GC86497@mtl-vdi-166.wap.labs.mlnx>
Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:26:00 +0200
From:   Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
CC:     "Hemminger, Stephen" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@...cle.com>,
        Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>,
        Gautam Dawar <gdawar@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] virtio: Define bit numbers for device independent
 features

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 02:06:39PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 3:16 PM Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 02:06:54PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > >
> > > 在 2022/2/10 下午5:27, Eli Cohen 写道:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 04:35:28PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:31 PM Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 03:54:57PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 8:56 PM Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Define bit fields for device independent feature bits. We need them in a
> > > > > > > > follow up patch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, define macros for start and end of these feature bits.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >   include/uapi/linux/virtio_config.h | 16 ++++++++--------
> > > > > > > >   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_config.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_config.h
> > > > > > > > index 3bf6c8bf8477..6d92cc31a8d3 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_config.h
> > > > > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_config.h
> > > > > > > > @@ -45,14 +45,14 @@
> > > > > > > >   /* We've given up on this device. */
> > > > > > > >   #define VIRTIO_CONFIG_S_FAILED         0x80
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -/*
> > > > > > > > - * Virtio feature bits VIRTIO_TRANSPORT_F_START through
> > > > > > > > - * VIRTIO_TRANSPORT_F_END are reserved for the transport
> > > > > > > > - * being used (e.g. virtio_ring, virtio_pci etc.), the
> > > > > > > > - * rest are per-device feature bits.
> > > > > > > > - */
> > > > > > > > -#define VIRTIO_TRANSPORT_F_START       28
> > > > > > > > -#define VIRTIO_TRANSPORT_F_END         38
> > > > > > > > +/* Device independent features per virtio spec 1.1 range from 28 to 38 */
> > > > > > > > +#define VIRTIO_DEV_INDEPENDENT_F_START 28
> > > > > > > > +#define VIRTIO_DEV_INDEPENDENT_F_END   38
> > > > > > > Haven't gone through patch 3 but I think it's probably better not
> > > > > > > touch uapi stuff. Or we can define those macros in other place?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I can put it in vdpa.c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +#define VIRTIO_F_RING_INDIRECT_DESC 28
> > > > > > > > +#define VIRTIO_F_RING_EVENT_IDX 29
> > > > > > > > +#define VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER 35
> > > > > > > > +#define VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA 38
> > > > > > > This part belongs to the virtio_ring.h any reason not pull that file
> > > > > > > instead of squashing those into virtio_config.h?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Not sure what you mean here. I can't find virtio_ring.h in my tree.
> > > > > I meant just copy the virtio_ring.h in the linux tree. It seems cleaner.
> > > > I will still miss VIRTIO_F_ORDER_PLATFORM and VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA
> > > > which are only defined in drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/mcdi_pcol.h for block
> > > > devices only.
> > > >
> > > > What would you suggest to do with them? Maybe define them in vdpa.c?
> > >
> > >
> > > I meant maybe we need a full synchronization from the current Linux uapi
> > > headers for virtio_config.h and and add virtio_ring.h here.
> > >
> >
> > virtio_config.h is updatd already and virtio_ring.h does not add any
> > flag definition that we're missing.
> >
> > The flags I was missing are
> > +#define VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER 35
> > +#define VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA 38
> 
> Right, so Gautam posted a path for _F_IN_ORDER [1].
> 
> We probably need another patch for NOTIFICATION_DATA.
> 

OK, I will send a patch NOTIFICATION_DATA. Once they are accepted, I
will follow up with a patch to remove from iproute2.
> 
> >
> > and both of these do not appear in the linux headers. They appear as
> > block specific flags:
> >
> > drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/mcdi_pcol.h:21471:#define VIRTIO_BLK_CONFIG_VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER_LBN 35
> > drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/mcdi_pcol.h:21480:#define VIRTIO_BLK_CONFIG_VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA_LBN 38
> >
> > So I just defined these two in vdpa.c (in patch v1).
> 
> Fine, but we need to remove them if we get update from linux kernel uapi headers
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/2/15/43
> 
> Thanks
> 
> >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >   #ifndef VIRTIO_CONFIG_NO_LEGACY
> > > > > > > >   /* Do we get callbacks when the ring is completely used, even if we've
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 2.34.1
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> >
>