netdev - Re: [PATCH V4 net-next 3/3] virtio-net: synchronize operstate with admin state on up/down

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: <20240801025654-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:00:32 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, eperezma@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
	virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Venkat Venkatsubra <venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com>,
	Gia-Khanh Nguyen <gia-khanh.nguyen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 net-next 3/3] virtio-net: synchronize operstate with
 admin state on up/down

On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 02:55:10PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 2:42 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 02:13:18PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 1:58 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 10:16:00AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > @@ -2885,6 +2886,25 @@ static void virtnet_cancel_dim(struct virtnet_info *vi, struct dim *dim)
> > > > > > >       net_dim_work_cancel(dim);
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +static void virtnet_update_settings(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +     u32 speed;
> > > > > > > +     u8 duplex;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +     if (!virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_SPEED_DUPLEX))
> > > > > > > +             return;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +     virtio_cread_le(vi->vdev, struct virtio_net_config, speed, &speed);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +     if (ethtool_validate_speed(speed))
> > > > > > > +             vi->speed = speed;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +     virtio_cread_le(vi->vdev, struct virtio_net_config, duplex, &duplex);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +     if (ethtool_validate_duplex(duplex))
> > > > > > > +             vi->duplex = duplex;
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I already commented on this approach.  This is now invoked on each open,
> > > > > > lots of extra VM exits. No bueno, people are working hard to keep setup
> > > > > > overhead under control. Handle this in the config change interrupt -
> > > > > > your new infrastructure is perfect for this.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, in this version it doesn't. Config space read only happens if
> > > > > there's a pending config interrupt during ndo_open:
> > > > >
> > > > > +       if (virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS)) {
> > > > > +               if (vi->status & VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP)
> > > > > +                       netif_carrier_on(vi->dev);
> > > > > +               virtio_config_driver_enable(vi->vdev);
> > > > > +       } else {
> > > > > +               vi->status = VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP;
> > > > > +               netif_carrier_on(dev);
> > > > > +               virtnet_update_settings(vi);
> > > > > +       }
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to !VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS.
> > > > I do not see why do we need to bother re-reading settings in this case at all,
> > > > status is not there, nothing much changes.
> > >
> > > Ok, let me remove it from the next version.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >  static int virtnet_open(struct net_device *dev)
> > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > >       struct virtnet_info *vi = netdev_priv(dev);
> > > > > > > @@ -2903,6 +2923,16 @@ static int virtnet_open(struct net_device *dev)
> > > > > > >                       goto err_enable_qp;
> > > > > > >       }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +     if (virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS)) {
> > > > > > > +             if (vi->status & VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP)
> > > > > > > +                     netif_carrier_on(vi->dev);
> > > > > > > +             virtio_config_driver_enable(vi->vdev);
> > > > > > > +     } else {
> > > > > > > +             vi->status = VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP;
> > > > > > > +             netif_carrier_on(dev);
> > > > > > > +             virtnet_update_settings(vi);
> > > > > > > +     }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >       return 0;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  err_enable_qp:
> > > > > > > @@ -3381,12 +3411,18 @@ static int virtnet_close(struct net_device *dev)
> > > > > > >       disable_delayed_refill(vi);
> > > > > > >       /* Make sure refill_work doesn't re-enable napi! */
> > > > > > >       cancel_delayed_work_sync(&vi->refill);
> > > > > > > +     /* Make sure config notification doesn't schedule config work */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it's clear what this does even without a comment.
> > > > > > what you should comment on, and do not, is *why*.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, it just follows the existing style, for example the above said
> > > > >
> > > > > "/* Make sure refill_work doesn't re-enable napi! */"
> > > >
> > > > only at the grammar level.
> > > > you don't see the difference?
> > > >
> > > >         /* Make sure refill_work doesn't re-enable napi! */
> > > >         cancel_delayed_work_sync(&vi->refill);
> > > >
> > > > it explains why we cancel: to avoid re-enabling napi.
> > > >
> > > > why do you cancel config callback and work?
> > > > comment should say that.
> > >
> > > Something like "Prevent the config change callback from changing
> > > carrier after close"?
> >
> >
> > sounds good.
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +     virtio_config_driver_disable(vi->vdev);
> > > > > > > +     /* Make sure status updating is cancelled */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > same
> > > > > >
> > > > > > also what "status updating"? confuses more than this clarifies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does "Make sure the config changed work is cancelled" sounds better?
> > > >
> > > > no, this just repeats what code does.
> > > > explain why you cancel it.
> > >
> > > Does something like "Make sure carrier changes have been done by the
> > > config change callback" works?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
> > I don't understand what this means.
> 
> Maybe "Ensure the configuration change callback successfully modifies
> the carrier status"?
> 
> Thanks

I don't know what this means either.
Do you mean:

/* Stop getting status/speed updates: we don't care until next open */


> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > MST
> > > >
> >