Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] libvhost-user: Start VQs on SET_VRING_CALL

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:29:46PM +0000, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
> 
> > On 13 Jan 2017, at 10:18, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 05:15:22PM +0000, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 13 Jan 2017, at 09:04, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 03:09:46PM +0000, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
> >>>> Hi Marc-Andre,
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On 13 Jan 2017, at 07:03, Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Hi
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>> Currently, VQs are started as soon as a SET_VRING_KICK is received. 
> >>>>>> That
> >>>>>> is too early in the VQ setup process, as the backend might not yet have
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I think we may want to reconsider queue_set_started(), move it 
> >>>>> elsewhere, since kick/call fds aren't mandatory to process the rings.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hmm. The fds aren't mandatory, but I imagine in that case we should 
> >>>> still receive SET_VRING_KICK/CALL messages without an fd (ie. with the 
> >>>> VHOST_MSG_VQ_NOFD_MASK flag set). Wouldn't that be the case?
> >>> 
> >>> Please look at docs/specs/vhost-user.txt, Starting and stopping rings
> >>> 
> >>> The spec says:
> >>>   Client must start ring upon receiving a kick (that is, detecting that
> >>>   file descriptor is readable) on the descriptor specified by
> >>>   VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_KICK, and stop ring upon receiving
> >>>   VHOST_USER_GET_VRING_BASE.
> >> 
> >> Yes I have seen the spec, but there is a race with the current 
> >> libvhost-user code which needs attention. My initial proposal (which got 
> >> turned down) was to send a spurious notification upon seeing a callfd. 
> >> Then I came up with this proposal. See below.
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> a callfd to notify in case it received a kick and fully processed the
> >>>>>> request/command. This patch only starts a VQ when a SET_VRING_CALL is
> >>>>>> received.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I don't like that much, as soon as the kick fd is received, it should 
> >>>>> start polling it imho. callfd is optional, it may have one and not the 
> >>>>> other.
> >>>> 
> >>>> So the question is whether we should be receiving a SET_VRING_CALL 
> >>>> anyway or not, regardless of an fd being sent. (I think we do, but I 
> >>>> haven't done extensive testing with other device types.)
> >>> 
> >>> I would say not, only KICK is mandatory and that is also not enough
> >>> to process ring. You must wait for it to be readable.
> >> 
> >> The problem is that Qemu takes time between sending the kickfd and the 
> >> callfd. Hence the race. Consider this scenario:
> >> 
> >> 1) Guest configures the device
> >> 2) Guest put a request on a virtq
> >> 3) Guest kicks
> >> 4) Qemu starts configuring the backend
> >> 4.a) Qemu sends the masked callfds
> >> 4.b) Qemu sends the virtq sizes and addresses
> >> 4.c) Qemu sends the kickfds
> >> 
> >> (When using MQ, Qemu will only send the callfd once all VQs are configured)
> >> 
> >> 5) The backend starts listening on the kickfd upon receiving it
> >> 6) The backend picks up the guest's request
> >> 7) The backend processes the request
> >> 8) The backend puts the response on the used ring
> >> 9) The backend notifies the masked callfd
> >> 
> >> 4.d) Qemu sends the callfds
> >> 
> >> At which point the guest missed the notification and gets stuck.
> >> 
> >> Perhaps you prefer my initial proposal of sending a spurious notification 
> >> when the backend sees a callfd?
> >> 
> >> Felipe
> > 
> > I thought we read the masked callfd when we unmask it,
> > and forward the interrupt. See kvm_irqfd_assign:
> > 
> >        /*
> >         * Check if there was an event already pending on the eventfd
> >         * before we registered, and trigger it as if we didn't miss it.
> >         */
> >        events = f.file->f_op->poll(f.file, &irqfd->pt);
> > 
> >        if (events & POLLIN)
> >                schedule_work(&irqfd->inject);
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Is this a problem you observe in practice?
> 
> Thanks for pointing out to this code; I wasn't aware of it.
> 
> Indeed I'm encountering it in practice. And I've checked that my kernel has 
> the code above.
> 
> Starts to sound like a race:
> Qemu registers the new notifier with kvm
> Backend kicks the (now no longer registered) maskfd

vhost user is not supposed to use maskfd at all.

We have this code:
        if (net->nc->info->type == NET_CLIENT_DRIVER_VHOST_USER) {
            dev->use_guest_notifier_mask = false;
        }

isn't it effective?



> Qemu sends the new callfd to the application
> 
> It's not hard to repro. How could this situation be avoided?
> 
> Cheers,
> Felipe
> 
> 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Perhaps it's best for now to delay the callfd notification with a flag 
> >>>>> until it is received?
> >>>> 
> >>>> The other idea is to always kick when we receive the callfd. I remember 
> >>>> discussing that alternative with you before libvhost-user went in. The 
> >>>> protocol says both the driver and the backend must handle spurious 
> >>>> kicks. This approach also fixes the bug.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I'm happy with whatever alternative you want, as long it makes 
> >>>> libvhost-user usable for storage devices.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Felipe
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Franciosi <address@hidden>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> diff --git a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
> >>>>>> b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
> >>>>>> index af4faad..a46ef90 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
> >>>>>> @@ -607,19 +607,6 @@ vu_set_vring_kick_exec(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg 
> >>>>>> *vmsg)
> >>>>>>       DPRINT("Got kick_fd: %d for vq: %d\n", vmsg->fds[0], index);
> >>>>>>   }
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> -    dev->vq[index].started = true;
> >>>>>> -    if (dev->iface->queue_set_started) {
> >>>>>> -        dev->iface->queue_set_started(dev, index, true);
> >>>>>> -    }
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> -    if (dev->vq[index].kick_fd != -1 && dev->vq[index].handler) {
> >>>>>> -        dev->set_watch(dev, dev->vq[index].kick_fd, VU_WATCH_IN,
> >>>>>> -                       vu_kick_cb, (void *)(long)index);
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> -        DPRINT("Waiting for kicks on fd: %d for vq: %d\n",
> >>>>>> -               dev->vq[index].kick_fd, index);
> >>>>>> -    }
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>>   return false;
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> @@ -661,6 +648,19 @@ vu_set_vring_call_exec(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg 
> >>>>>> *vmsg)
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>   DPRINT("Got call_fd: %d for vq: %d\n", vmsg->fds[0], index);
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> +    dev->vq[index].started = true;
> >>>>>> +    if (dev->iface->queue_set_started) {
> >>>>>> +        dev->iface->queue_set_started(dev, index, true);
> >>>>>> +    }
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +    if (dev->vq[index].kick_fd != -1 && dev->vq[index].handler) {
> >>>>>> +        dev->set_watch(dev, dev->vq[index].kick_fd, VU_WATCH_IN,
> >>>>>> +                       vu_kick_cb, (void *)(long)index);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +        DPRINT("Waiting for kicks on fd: %d for vq: %d\n",
> >>>>>> +               dev->vq[index].kick_fd, index);
> >>>>>> +    }
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>>   return false;
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 1.9.4
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>