Re: [PATCH 0/2] virtio: non-legacy device handling

[David Hildenbrand]

On 23.07.20 08:33, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:07:51 +0200
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 20.07.20 11:03, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:09:57AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:  
>>>> On 07.07.20 12:54, Cornelia Huck wrote:  
>>>>> As discussed in "virtio-fs: force virtio 1.x usage", it seems like
>>>>> a good idea to make sure that any new virtio device (which does not
>>>>> support legacy virtio) is indeed a non-transitional device, just to
>>>>> catch accidental misconfigurations. We can easily compile a list
>>>>> of virtio devices with legacy support and have transports verify
>>>>> in their plugged callbacks that legacy support is off for any device
>>>>> not in that list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most new virtio devices force non-transitional already, so nothing
>>>>> changes for them. vhost-user-fs-pci even does not allow to configure
>>>>> a non-transitional device, so it is fine as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> One problematic device, however, is virtio-iommu-pci. It currently
>>>>> offers both the transitional and the non-transitional variety of the
>>>>> device, and does not force anything. I'm unsure whether we should
>>>>> consider transitional virtio-iommu unsupported, or if we should add
>>>>> some compat handling. (The support for legacy or not generally may
>>>>> change based upon the bus, IIUC, so I'm unsure how to come up with
>>>>> something generic.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cornelia Huck (2):
>>>>>   virtio: list legacy-capable devices
>>>>>   virtio: verify that legacy support is not accidentally on  
>>>>
>>>> I'd squash both patches. Looking at patch #1, I wonder why we don't
>>>> store that information along with the device implementation? What was
>>>> the motivation to define this information separately?  
>>>
>>> Because people seem to cut and paste code, so when one
>>> enables it in an old device, it gets pasted into a new one.
>>> With a list in a central place, it's easier to figure out
>>> what's going on.  
>>
>> Makes sense, I suggest adding that to the patch description.
> 
> "The list of devices supporting legacy is supposed to be static. We
> keep it in a central place to make sure that new devices do not enable
> legacy by accident."
> 
> ?

Ack!

> 
>>
>> Both patches look sane to me (- squashing them).
>>
> 
> Patch 1 does not change behaviour, while patch 2 does (for
> virtio-iommu-pci). Still would like an opinion whether changing the
> behaviour for virtio-iommu-pci with no compat handling is ok.
> 
> (I could be persuaded to squash them.)

I'm a friend of introducing helper functions along with code that
actually uses it. But I agree that the change in behavior might be
hairy. Maybe we can split that out somehow to give it more attention?

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb