From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, markver@us.ibm.com,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back features before verify
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 11:07:37 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211004110537-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <875yuc3ln2.fsf@redhat.com>
On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 04:33:21PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04 2021, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 02:19:55PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>
> >> [cc:qemu-devel]
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 02 2021, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 09:21:25AM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 07:12:21 -0400
> >> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 03:20:49AM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> >> >> > > This patch fixes a regression introduced by commit 82e89ea077b9
> >> >> > > ("virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config space") and
> >> >> > > enables similar checks in verify() on big endian platforms.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The problem with checking multi-byte config fields in the verify
> >> >> > > callback, on big endian platforms, and with a possibly transitional
> >> >> > > device is the following. The verify() callback is called between
> >> >> > > config->get_features() and virtio_finalize_features(). That we have a
> >> >> > > device that offered F_VERSION_1 then we have the following options
> >> >> > > either the device is transitional, and then it has to present the legacy
> >> >> > > interface, i.e. a big endian config space until F_VERSION_1 is
> >> >> > > negotiated, or we have a non-transitional device, which makes
> >> >> > > F_VERSION_1 mandatory, and only implements the non-legacy interface and
> >> >> > > thus presents a little endian config space. Because at this point we
> >> >> > > can't know if the device is transitional or non-transitional, we can't
> >> >> > > know do we need to byte swap or not.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hmm which transport does this refer to?
> >> >>
> >> >> It is the same with virtio-ccw and virtio-pci. I see the same problem
> >> >> with both on s390x. I didn't try with virtio-blk-pci-non-transitional
> >> >> yet (have to figure out how to do that with libvirt) for pci I used
> >> >> virtio-blk-pci.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Distinguishing between legacy and modern drivers is transport
> >> >> > specific. PCI presents
> >> >> > legacy and modern at separate addresses so distinguishing
> >> >> > between these two should be no trouble.
> >> >>
> >> >> You mean the device id? Yes that is bolted down in the spec, but
> >> >> currently we don't exploit that information. Furthermore there
> >> >> is a fat chance that with QEMU even the allegedly non-transitional
> >> >> devices only present a little endian config space after VERSION_1
> >> >> was negotiated. Namely get_config for virtio-blk is implemented in
> >> >> virtio_blk_update_config() which does virtio_stl_p(vdev,
> >> >> &blkcfg.blk_size, blk_size) and in there we don't care
> >> >> about transitional or not:
> >> >>
> >> >> static inline bool virtio_access_is_big_endian(VirtIODevice *vdev)
> >> >> {
> >> >> #if defined(LEGACY_VIRTIO_IS_BIENDIAN)
> >> >> return virtio_is_big_endian(vdev);
> >> >> #elif defined(TARGET_WORDS_BIGENDIAN)
> >> >> if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
> >> >> /* Devices conforming to VIRTIO 1.0 or later are always LE. */
> >> >> return false;
> >> >> }
> >> >> return true;
> >> >> #else
> >> >> return false;
> >> >> #endif
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > ok so that's a QEMU bug. Any virtio 1.0 and up
> >> > compatible device must use LE.
> >> > It can also present a legacy config space where the
> >> > endian depends on the guest.
> >>
> >> So, how is the virtio core supposed to determine this? A
> >> transport-specific callback?
> >
> > I'd say a field in VirtIODevice is easiest.
>
> The transport needs to set this as soon as it has figured out whether
> we're using legacy or not.
Basically on each device config access?
> I guess we also need to fence off any
> accesses respectively error out the device if the driver tries any
> read/write operations that would depend on that knowledge?
>
> And using a field in VirtIODevice would probably need some care when
> migrating. Hm...
It's just a shorthand to minimize changes. No need to migrate I think.
--
MST
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-04 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-30 1:20 [RFC PATCH 1/1] virtio: write back features before verify Halil Pasic
2021-09-30 8:04 ` Christian Borntraeger
2021-09-30 9:28 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-09-30 11:03 ` Halil Pasic
2021-09-30 11:31 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-01 14:22 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-01 15:18 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-02 18:13 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 2:23 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-04 9:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 10:06 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 10:43 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 11:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 11:59 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 15:25 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 7:01 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 9:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-04 9:51 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-02 12:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-30 11:12 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-09-30 11:36 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-02 18:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-03 5:00 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-03 6:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-03 7:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 12:01 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 12:54 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 14:27 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:05 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 15:45 ` [virtio-dev] " Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 20:01 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 7:38 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-05 11:17 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:22 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 15:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-01 7:21 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-02 10:21 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 12:19 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 13:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-04 14:33 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 15:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2021-10-04 15:50 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-04 19:17 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-06 10:13 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-10-06 12:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 7:25 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 7:53 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-05 10:46 ` Halil Pasic
2021-10-05 11:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2021-10-01 14:34 ` Christian Borntraeger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211004110537-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markver@us.ibm.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xieyongji@bytedance.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).