* vhost-user protocol feature negotiation
@ 2020-08-05 15:13 Alyssa Ross
2020-08-05 22:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alyssa Ross @ 2020-08-05 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin, qemu-devel
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: vhost-user protocol feature negotiation
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
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2020-08-05 22:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alyssa Ross; +Cc: qemu-devel
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.
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?
How would you suggest clarifying the wording?
Thanks,
--
MST
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: vhost-user protocol feature negotiation
2020-08-05 22:26 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2020-08-06 8:59 ` Alyssa Ross
2020-08-06 9:49 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alyssa Ross @ 2020-08-06 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: qemu-devel
"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
@@ -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
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: vhost-user protocol feature negotiation
2020-08-06 8:59 ` Alyssa Ross
@ 2020-08-06 9:49 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-08-06 11:24 ` Alyssa Ross
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2020-08-06 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alyssa Ross; +Cc: qemu-devel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: vhost-user protocol feature negotiation
2020-08-06 9:49 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2020-08-06 11:24 ` Alyssa Ross
2020-08-06 12:35 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alyssa Ross @ 2020-08-06 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin; +Cc: qemu-devel
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> 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.
To me, it's confusing that a frontend is expected to ack
VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES even though the ack can't have any effect
(because VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES and
VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES both have to work even if the ack
hasn't been received yet).
But, if the frontend is supposed to ack anyway, how about:
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Ross <hi@alysas.is>
---
diff --git i/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst w/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
index 10e3e3475e..bc78c9947f 100644
--- i/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
+++ w/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
@@ -854,9 +854,9 @@ 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.
+ While QEMU should acknowledge ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``, a
+ backend must allow ``VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` even if
+ ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` has not been acknowledged yet.
``VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``
:id: 16
@@ -869,8 +869,12 @@ 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.
+ While QEMU should acknowledge ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``, a
+ backend must allow ``VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` even if
+ ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` has not been acknowledged yet.
+ The backend must not wait for ``VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES`` before
+ enabling protocol features requested with
+ ``VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``.
``VHOST_USER_SET_OWNER``
:id: 3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: vhost-user protocol feature negotiation
2020-08-06 11:24 ` Alyssa Ross
@ 2020-08-06 12:35 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2020-08-06 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alyssa Ross; +Cc: qemu-devel
On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 11:24:59AM +0000, Alyssa Ross wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> To me, it's confusing that a frontend is expected to ack
> VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES even though the ack can't have any effect
> (because VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES and
> VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES both have to work even if the ack
> hasn't been received yet).
>
> But, if the frontend is supposed to ack anyway, how about:
>
> Signed-off-by: Alyssa Ross <hi@alysas.is>
>
> ---
> diff --git i/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst w/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
> index 10e3e3475e..bc78c9947f 100644
> --- i/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
> +++ w/docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
> @@ -854,9 +854,9 @@ 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.
> + While QEMU should acknowledge ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``, a
> + backend must allow ``VHOST_USER_GET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` even if
> + ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` has not been acknowledged yet.
>
> ``VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``
> :id: 16
> @@ -869,8 +869,12 @@ 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.
> + While QEMU should acknowledge ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``, a
> + backend must allow ``VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` even if
> + ``VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES`` has not been acknowledged yet.
> + The backend must not wait for ``VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES`` before
> + enabling protocol features requested with
> + ``VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES``.
>
> ``VHOST_USER_SET_OWNER``
> :id: 3
That looks good to me.
Pls post a patch on list, preferably after qemu is released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-08-06 12:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
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
2020-08-06 11:24 ` Alyssa Ross
2020-08-06 12:35 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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).