[PATCH v5 2/4] vduse: Temporarily disable control queue features

[Maxime Coquelin]

On 12/18/23 03:50, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 7:23 PM Maxime Coquelin
> <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On 12/13/23 05:52, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 9:17 PM Maxime Coquelin
>>> <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Virtio-net driver control queue implementation is not safe
>>>> when used with VDUSE. If the VDUSE application does not
>>>> reply to control queue messages, it currently ends up
>>>> hanging the kernel thread sending this command.
>>>>
>>>> Some work is on-going to make the control queue
>>>> implementation robust with VDUSE. Until it is completed,
>>>> let's disable control virtqueue and features that depend on
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>
>>>
>>> I wonder if it's better to fail instead of a mask as a start.
>>
>> I think it is better to use a mask and not fail, so that we can in the
>> future use a recent VDUSE application with an older kernel.
> 
> It may confuse the userspace unless userspace can do post check after
> CREATE_DEV.
> 
> And for blk we fail when WCE is set in feature_is_valid():
> 
> static bool features_is_valid(u64 features)
> {
>          if (!(features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM)))
>                  return false;
> 
>          /* Now we only support read-only configuration space */
>          if (features & (1ULL << VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE))
>                  return false;
> 
>          return true;
> }

Ok, consistency with other devices types is indeed better.

But should I fail if any of the feature advertised by the application is
not listed by the VDUSE driver, or just fail if control queue is being
advertised by the application?

Thanks,
Maxime

> Thanks
> 
>>
>> Why would it be better to fail than negotiating?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Maxime
>>
>