[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] Vhost: fix mq=on but VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ not negotiated

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 12/06/17 10:20, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This third revision reworks the VQs destruction loop to fixes the
> of-by-one error reported by Laszlo.
> 
> Having QEMU started with mq=on but guest driver not negotiating
> VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ feature ends up in the vhost device to never
> start. Indeed, more queues are created in the vhost backend than
> configured.
> 
> Guest drivers known to not advertise the VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ feature are
> iPXE and OVMF Virtio-net drivers.
> 
> Queues are created because before starting the guest, QEMU sends
> VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_CALL requests for all queues declared in QEMU
> command line. Also, once Virtio features negotiated, QEMU sends
> VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE requests to disable all but the first
> queue pair.
> 
> This series fixes this by destroying all but first queue pair in
> the backend if VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ isn't negotiated. First patches
> makes sure that VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES request doesn't change
> Virtio features while the device is running, which should never
> happen as per the Virtio spec. This helps to make sure vitqueues
> aren't destroyed while being processed, but also protect from
> other illegal features changes (e.g. VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF).
> 
> 
> Changes since v2:
> =================
> - Patch 2: Rework & fix VQs destruction loop (Laszlo)
> Changes since v1:
> =================
> - Patch 1: shift bits in the right direction (Ladi)
> 
> Maxime Coquelin (4):
>   vhost: prevent features to be changed while device is running
>   vhost: propagate VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES handling error
>   vhost: extract virtqueue cleaning and freeing functions
>   vhost: destroy unused virtqueues when multiqueue not negotiated
> 
>  lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c      | 22 ++++++++++++----------
>  lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h      |  3 +++
>  lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 

I have no background in DPDK (as I've stated) and I didn't look at a
wider code context than what is captured in the patches. So whatever
opinion I hold may have little value.

With that disclaimer, if you want it:

Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek at redhat.com>

Thanks,
Laszlo