On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 09:49:03AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 2019-01-25 09:16, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 07:07:35AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> On 2019-01-25 07:01, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >>> On 2019-01-24 18:23, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> >>>> If the WRITE_ZEROES feature is enabled, we check this
> >>>> command in the test_basic().
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  tests/virtio-blk-test.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/tests/virtio-blk-test.c b/tests/virtio-blk-test.c
> >>>> index 04c608764b..8cabbcb85a 100644
> >>>> --- a/tests/virtio-blk-test.c
> >>>> +++ b/tests/virtio-blk-test.c
> >>>> @@ -231,6 +231,69 @@ static void test_basic(QVirtioDevice *dev, QGuestAllocator *alloc,
> >>>>  
> >>>>      guest_free(alloc, req_addr);
> >>>>  
> >>>> +    if (features & (1u << VIRTIO_BLK_F_WRITE_ZEROES)) {
> >>>> +        struct virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes *dwz_hdr;
> >>>> +        void *expected;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +        /*
> >>>> +         * WRITE_ZEROES request on the same sector of previous test where
> >>>> +         * we wrote "TEST".
> >>>> +         */
> >>>> +        req.type = VIRTIO_BLK_T_WRITE_ZEROES;
> >>>> +        req.data = g_malloc0(512);
> >>>
> >>> Wouldn't it be more interesting to do a memset(req.data, 0xaa, 512) or
> >>> something similar here, to see whether zeroes or 0xaa is written?
> >>
> >> Ah, never mind, I thought req.data would be a sector buffer here, but
> >> looking at the lines below, it apparently is something different.
> >>
> >> Why do you allocate 512 bytes here? I'd rather expect
> >> g_malloc0(sizeof(struct virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes)) here. ... and
> >> then you could also use a local "struct virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes
> >> dwz_hdr" variable instead of a pointer, and drop the g_malloc0() completely?
> >>
> > 
> > Hi Thomas,
> > it was my initial implementation, but on the first test I discovered
> > that virtio_blk_request() has an assert on the data_size and it requires
> > a multiple of 512 bytes.
> > Then I looked at the virtio-spec #1, and it seems that data should be
> > multiple of 512 bytes also if it contains the struct
> > virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes. (I'm not sure)
> > 
> > Anyway I tried to allocate only the space for that struct, commented the
> > assert and the test works well.
> > 
> > How do you suggest to proceed?
> 
> Wow, that's a tough question. Looking at the virtio spec, I agree with
> you, it looks like struct virtio_blk_discard_write_zeroes should be
> padded to 512 bytes here. But when I look at the Linux sources
> (drivers/block/virtio_blk.c), I fail to see that they are doing the
> padding there (but maybe I'm just too blind).

The only evidence for "pad to 512 bytes" interpretation that I see in
the spec is "u8 data[][512];".  Or have I missed something more
explicit?

Based on the Linux guest driver code and the lack of more evidence in
the spec, I'm pretty sure data[] doesn't need to be padded to 512 bytes
for discard/write zero requests.

> Looking at the QEMU sources, it seems like it can deal with both and
> always sets the status right behind the last byte:
> 
>     req->in = (void *)in_iov[in_num - 1].iov_base
>               + in_iov[in_num - 1].iov_len
>               - sizeof(struct virtio_blk_inhdr);
> 
> Anyway, I think the virtio spec should be clearer here to avoid bad
> implementations in the future, so maybe Changpeng or Michael could
> update the spec here a little bit?

Yep, good point.  VIRTIO 1.1 is available for public comments, so I've
CCed the list.

Stefan

>  Thomas
> 
> 
> > [1](https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/blob/master/content.tex#L3944)
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Stefano
> > 
> 
>