qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Alyssa Ross <hi@alyssa.is>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: vhost-user protocol feature negotiation
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 05:49:14 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200806054622-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lfis2lr6.fsf@alyssa.is>

On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 08:59:09AM +0000, Alyssa Ross wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 03:13:06PM +0000, Alyssa Ross wrote:
> >> Quoting from the definition of VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES in
> >> vhost-user.rst:
> >> 
> >> >   Only legal if feature bit ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` is present in
> >> >   ``VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES``.
> >> > 
> >> > .. Note::
> >> >    Slave that reported ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` must support
> >> >    this message even before ``VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES`` was called.
> >> 
> >> To me, this could mean either of two things:
> >> 
> >> (1) If VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES hasn't been set, upon receiving
> >>     VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES, a backend should enable the
> >>     protocol features immediately.
> >> 
> >> (2) If VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES hasn't been set, upon receiving
> >>     VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES, a backend should store those
> >>     feature bits, but not actually consider them to be enabled until
> >>     after VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES has been received (presumably
> >>     containing VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES).
> >> 
> >> The reason I bring this up is that QEMU appears to interpret it as (1),
> >> while the vhost-user-net backend in Intel's cloud-hypervisor[1]
> >> interprets it as (2).  So I'm looking for a clarification.
> >> 
> >> [1]: https://github.com/cloud-hypervisor/cloud-hypervisor
> >> 
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
> > IMHO the intent was this: VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES bit in
> > VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES means that qemu can send
> > VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES and VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES.
> >
> > With most feature bits in VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES, the
> > specific functionality needs to only be enabled after
> > VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES.
> >
> > However, this is for functionality dealing with guest activity.
> > VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES has nothing to do with guest directly,
> > it's about negotiation between qemu and backend: it is only in
> > VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES for the reason that this is the only message
> > (very) old backends reported.  Thus, the backend should not check
> > whether VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES sets VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES,
> > instead it should simply always be ready to receive
> > VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES and VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES.
> >
> > Backend that isn't always ready to handle
> > VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES and VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES
> > should not set VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES in
> > VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES.
> 
> Thanks for the explanation.  That matches what I had in mind with (1).
> 
> > This appears to be closer to (1), but if qemu can't distinguish
> > then we don't care, right? For example, VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK
> > enables acks on arbitrary messages. Does the backend in question
> > ignore the affected bit until SET_FEATURES? If yes won't this
> > make qemu hang?
> 
> Yes.  That was my motivation for asking what the correct behaviour was,
> so that I could fix the incorrect one. :)  I suspect that up to this point,
> the cloud-hypervisor vhost-user-net backend has only been used with
> cloud-hypervisor, and so this incompatibilty with QEMU was not noticed.
> 
> > How would you suggest clarifying the wording?
> 
> Do you think this communicates everything required?
> 
> ---
> diff --git i/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst w/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
> index 10e3e3475e..72724d292a 100644
> --- i/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
> +++ w/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
> @@ -854,9 +854,8 @@ Master message types
>    ``VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES``.
>  
>  .. Note::
> -   Slave that reported ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` must
> -   support this message even before ``VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES`` was
> -   called.
> +   ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` does not need to be acknowledged
> +   with ``VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES``.
>  
>  ``VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``
>    :id: 16

Hmm I find this confusing. I think it's a good policy to ask qemu to
acknowledge it. It's just that the client should not wait for
VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES before handling VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES
or VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES.


> @@ -869,8 +868,8 @@ Master message types
>    ``VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES``.
>  
>  .. Note::
> -   Slave that reported ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` must support
> -   this message even before ``VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES`` was called.
> +   ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` does not need to be acknowledged
> +   with ``VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES``.
>  
>  ``VHOST_USER_SET_OWNER``
>    :id: 3



  reply	other threads:[~2020-08-06 12:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-05 15:13 vhost-user protocol feature negotiation Alyssa Ross
2020-08-05 22:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-08-06  8:59   ` Alyssa Ross
2020-08-06  9:49     ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2020-08-06 11:24       ` Alyssa Ross
2020-08-06 12:35         ` Michael S. Tsirkin

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=20200806054622-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
    --to=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=hi@alyssa.is \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    /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).