Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2022 04:31:33 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc:     Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>, eric.auger.pro@gmail.com,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        peterx@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] vhost: Clear the pending messages on
 vhost_init_device_iotlb()
Message-ID: <20221108041820-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20221107203431.368306-1-eric.auger@redhat.com>
 <20221107153924-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <b8487793-d7b8-0557-a4c2-b62754e14830@redhat.com>
 <20221107180022-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CACGkMEsYyH5P2h6XkBgrW4O-xJXxdzzRa1+T2zjJ07OHiYObVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221108035142-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CACGkMEtFhmgKrKwTT8MdQG26wbi20Z5cTn69ycBtE17V+Kupuw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACGkMEtFhmgKrKwTT8MdQG26wbi20Z5cTn69ycBtE17V+Kupuw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 05:13:50PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 4:56 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 11:09:36AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 7:06 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 10:10:06PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > On 11/7/22 21:42, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:34:31PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> > > > > >> When the vhost iotlb is used along with a guest virtual iommu
> > > > > >> and the guest gets rebooted, some MISS messages may have been
> > > > > >> recorded just before the reboot and spuriously executed by
> > > > > >> the virtual iommu after the reboot. Despite the device iotlb gets
> > > > > >> re-initialized, the messages are not cleared. Fix that by calling
> > > > > >> vhost_clear_msg() at the end of vhost_init_device_iotlb().
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> > > > > >> ---
> > > > > >>  drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 1 +
> > > > > >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > > > >> index 40097826cff0..422a1fdee0ca 100644
> > > > > >> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > > > >> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > > > >> @@ -1751,6 +1751,7 @@ int vhost_init_device_iotlb(struct vhost_dev *d, bool enabled)
> > > > > >>    }
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>    vhost_iotlb_free(oiotlb);
> > > > > >> +  vhost_clear_msg(d);
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>    return 0;
> > > > > >>  }
> > > > > > Hmm.  Can't messages meanwhile get processes and affect the
> > > > > > new iotlb?
> > > > > Isn't the msg processing stopped at the moment this function is called
> > > > > (VHOST_SET_FEATURES)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > > It's pretty late here I'm not sure.  You tell me what prevents it.
> > >
> > > So the proposed code assumes that Qemu doesn't process device IOTLB
> > > before VHOST_SET_FEAETURES. Consider there's no reset in the general
> > > vhost uAPI,  I wonder if it's better to move the clear to device code
> > > like VHOST_NET_SET_BACKEND. So we can clear it per vq?
> >
> > Hmm this makes no sense to me. iommu sits between backend
> > and frontend. Tying one to another is going to backfire.
> 
> I think we need to emulate what real devices are doing. Device should
> clear the page fault message during reset, so the driver won't read
> anything after reset. But we don't have a per device stop or reset
> message for vhost-net. That's why the VHOST_NET_SET_BACKEND came into
> my mind.

That's not a reset message. Userspace can switch backends at will.
I guess we could check when backend is set to -1.
It's a hack but might work.

> >
> > I'm thinking more along the lines of doing everything
> > under iotlb_lock.
> 
> I think the problem is we need to find a proper place to clear the
> message. So I don't get how iotlb_lock can help: the message could be
> still read from user space after the backend is set to NULL.
> 
> Thanks

Well I think the real problem is this.

vhost_net_set_features does:

        if ((features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM))) {
                if (vhost_init_device_iotlb(&n->dev, true))
                        goto out_unlock;
        }


so we get a new iotlb each time features are set.

But features can be changes while device is running.
E.g.
	VHOST_F_LOG_ALL


Let's just say this hack of reusing feature bits for backend
was not my brightest idea :(


> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > BTW vhost_init_device_iotlb gets enabled parameter but ignores
> > > > it, we really should drop that.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, it looks like if features are set with VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM
> > > > and then cleared, iotlb is not properly cleared - bug?
> > >
> > > Not sure, old IOTLB may still work. But for safety, we need to disable
> > > device IOTLB in this case.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> 2.37.3
> > > >
> >