Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] virtio/virtio-pci: Handle extra notification data
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 9:24 PM Jonah Palmer wrote: > > > > On 3/14/24 3:05 PM, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 5:06 PM Jonah Palmer > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 3/14/24 10:55 AM, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:16 PM Jonah Palmer > >>> wrote: > > > > On 3/13/24 11:01 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:55 PM Jonah Palmer > > wrote: > >> > >> Add support to virtio-pci devices for handling the extra data sent > >> from the driver to the device when the VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA > >> transport feature has been negotiated. > >> > >> The extra data that's passed to the virtio-pci device when this > >> feature is enabled varies depending on the device's virtqueue > >> layout. > >> > >> In a split virtqueue layout, this data includes: > >> - upper 16 bits: shadow_avail_idx > >> - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index > >> > >> In a packed virtqueue layout, this data includes: > >> - upper 16 bits: 1-bit wrap counter & 15-bit shadow_avail_idx > >> - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index > >> > >> Tested-by: Lei Yang > >> Reviewed-by: Eugenio Pérez > >> Signed-off-by: Jonah Palmer > >> --- > >> hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 10 +++--- > >> hw/virtio/virtio.c | 18 ++ > >> include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 1 + > >> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > >> index cb6940fc0e..0f5c3c3b2f 100644 > >> --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > >> +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > >> @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, > >> uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) > >> { > >> VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = opaque; > >> VirtIODevice *vdev = virtio_bus_get_device(&proxy->bus); > >> -uint16_t vector; > >> +uint16_t vector, vq_idx; > >> hwaddr pa; > >> > >> switch (addr) { > >> @@ -408,8 +408,12 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, > >> uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) > >> vdev->queue_sel = val; > >> break; > >> case VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_NOTIFY: > >> -if (val < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { > >> -virtio_queue_notify(vdev, val); > >> +vq_idx = val; > >> +if (vq_idx < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { > >> +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, > >> VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA)) { > >> +virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(vdev, val); > >> +} > >> +virtio_queue_notify(vdev, vq_idx); > >> } > >> break; > >> case VIRTIO_PCI_STATUS: > >> diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c > >> index d229755eae..bcb9e09df0 100644 > >> --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c > >> +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c > >> @@ -2255,6 +2255,24 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, > >> int n, int align) > >> } > >> } > >> > >> +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t > >> data) > >>> > >>> Maybe I didn't explain well, but I think it is better to pass directly > >>> idx to a VirtQueue *. That way only the caller needs to check for a > >>> valid vq idx, and (my understanding is) the virtio.c interface is > >>> migrating to VirtQueue * use anyway. > >>> > >> > >> Oh, are you saying to just pass in a VirtQueue *vq instead of > >> VirtIODevice *vdev and get rid of the vq->vring.desc check in the function? > >> > > > > No, that needs to be kept. I meant the access to vdev->vq[i] without > > checking for a valid i. > > > > Ahh okay I see what you mean. But I thought the following was checking > for a valid VQ index: > > if (vq_idx < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) > Right, but then the (potentially multiple) callers are responsible to check for that. If we accept a VirtQueue *, it is assumed it is valid already. > Of course the virtio device may not have up to VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX > virtqueues, so maybe we should be checking for validity like this? > > if (vdev->vq[i].vring.num == 0) > Actually yes, if you're going to send a new version I think checking against num is better. Good find! > Or was there something else you had in mind? Apologies for the confusion. > No worries, virtio.c is full of checks like that :). Thanks! > > You can get the VirtQueue in the caller with virtio_get_queue. Which > > also does not check for a valid index, but that way is clearer the > > caller needs to check it. > > > > Roger, I'll use this instead for clarity. > > > As a side note, the check for desc != 0 is widespread in QEMU but the > > driver may use 0 address for desc, so it's not 100% valid. But to > > change that now requires a deeper change out of the scope of this >
Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] virtio/virtio-pci: Handle extra notification data
On 3/14/24 3:05 PM, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 5:06 PM Jonah Palmer wrote: On 3/14/24 10:55 AM, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:16 PM Jonah Palmer wrote: On 3/13/24 11:01 PM, Jason Wang wrote: On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:55 PM Jonah Palmer wrote: Add support to virtio-pci devices for handling the extra data sent from the driver to the device when the VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA transport feature has been negotiated. The extra data that's passed to the virtio-pci device when this feature is enabled varies depending on the device's virtqueue layout. In a split virtqueue layout, this data includes: - upper 16 bits: shadow_avail_idx - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index In a packed virtqueue layout, this data includes: - upper 16 bits: 1-bit wrap counter & 15-bit shadow_avail_idx - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index Tested-by: Lei Yang Reviewed-by: Eugenio Pérez Signed-off-by: Jonah Palmer --- hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 10 +++--- hw/virtio/virtio.c | 18 ++ include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c index cb6940fc0e..0f5c3c3b2f 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) { VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = opaque; VirtIODevice *vdev = virtio_bus_get_device(&proxy->bus); -uint16_t vector; +uint16_t vector, vq_idx; hwaddr pa; switch (addr) { @@ -408,8 +408,12 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) vdev->queue_sel = val; break; case VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_NOTIFY: -if (val < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { -virtio_queue_notify(vdev, val); +vq_idx = val; +if (vq_idx < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA)) { +virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(vdev, val); +} +virtio_queue_notify(vdev, vq_idx); } break; case VIRTIO_PCI_STATUS: diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c index d229755eae..bcb9e09df0 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c @@ -2255,6 +2255,24 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) } } +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data) Maybe I didn't explain well, but I think it is better to pass directly idx to a VirtQueue *. That way only the caller needs to check for a valid vq idx, and (my understanding is) the virtio.c interface is migrating to VirtQueue * use anyway. Oh, are you saying to just pass in a VirtQueue *vq instead of VirtIODevice *vdev and get rid of the vq->vring.desc check in the function? No, that needs to be kept. I meant the access to vdev->vq[i] without checking for a valid i. Ahh okay I see what you mean. But I thought the following was checking for a valid VQ index: if (vq_idx < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) Of course the virtio device may not have up to VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX virtqueues, so maybe we should be checking for validity like this? if (vdev->vq[i].vring.num == 0) Or was there something else you had in mind? Apologies for the confusion. You can get the VirtQueue in the caller with virtio_get_queue. Which also does not check for a valid index, but that way is clearer the caller needs to check it. Roger, I'll use this instead for clarity. As a side note, the check for desc != 0 is widespread in QEMU but the driver may use 0 address for desc, so it's not 100% valid. But to change that now requires a deeper change out of the scope of this series, so let's keep it for now :). Thanks! > I'll add it to the todo list =] +{ +/* Lower 16 bits is the virtqueue index */ +uint16_t i = data; +VirtQueue *vq = &vdev->vq[i]; + +if (!vq->vring.desc) { +return; +} + +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) { +vq->shadow_avail_wrap_counter = (data >> 31) & 0x1; +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16) & 0x7FFF; +} else { +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16); Do we need to do a sanity check for this value? Thanks It can't hurt, right? What kind of check did you have in mind? if (vq->shadow_avail_idx >= vq->vring.num) I'm a little bit lost too. shadow_avail_idx can take all uint16_t values. Maybe you meant checking for a valid vq index, Jason? Thanks! Or something else? +} +} + static void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) { if (vq->vring.desc && vq->handle_output) { diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h index c8f72850bc..53915947a7 100644 --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h @@ -335,6 +335,7 @@ void virtio_queue_update_rings
Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] virtio/virtio-pci: Handle extra notification data
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 5:06 PM Jonah Palmer wrote: > > > > On 3/14/24 10:55 AM, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:16 PM Jonah Palmer > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 3/13/24 11:01 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > >>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:55 PM Jonah Palmer > >>> wrote: > > Add support to virtio-pci devices for handling the extra data sent > from the driver to the device when the VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA > transport feature has been negotiated. > > The extra data that's passed to the virtio-pci device when this > feature is enabled varies depending on the device's virtqueue > layout. > > In a split virtqueue layout, this data includes: > - upper 16 bits: shadow_avail_idx > - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index > > In a packed virtqueue layout, this data includes: > - upper 16 bits: 1-bit wrap counter & 15-bit shadow_avail_idx > - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index > > Tested-by: Lei Yang > Reviewed-by: Eugenio Pérez > Signed-off-by: Jonah Palmer > --- > hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 10 +++--- > hw/virtio/virtio.c | 18 ++ > include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 1 + > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > index cb6940fc0e..0f5c3c3b2f 100644 > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, > uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) > { > VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = opaque; > VirtIODevice *vdev = virtio_bus_get_device(&proxy->bus); > -uint16_t vector; > +uint16_t vector, vq_idx; > hwaddr pa; > > switch (addr) { > @@ -408,8 +408,12 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, > uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) > vdev->queue_sel = val; > break; > case VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_NOTIFY: > -if (val < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { > -virtio_queue_notify(vdev, val); > +vq_idx = val; > +if (vq_idx < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { > +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, > VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA)) { > +virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(vdev, val); > +} > +virtio_queue_notify(vdev, vq_idx); > } > break; > case VIRTIO_PCI_STATUS: > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c > index d229755eae..bcb9e09df0 100644 > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c > @@ -2255,6 +2255,24 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, > int n, int align) > } > } > > +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t > data) > > > > Maybe I didn't explain well, but I think it is better to pass directly > > idx to a VirtQueue *. That way only the caller needs to check for a > > valid vq idx, and (my understanding is) the virtio.c interface is > > migrating to VirtQueue * use anyway. > > > > Oh, are you saying to just pass in a VirtQueue *vq instead of > VirtIODevice *vdev and get rid of the vq->vring.desc check in the function? > No, that needs to be kept. I meant the access to vdev->vq[i] without checking for a valid i. You can get the VirtQueue in the caller with virtio_get_queue. Which also does not check for a valid index, but that way is clearer the caller needs to check it. As a side note, the check for desc != 0 is widespread in QEMU but the driver may use 0 address for desc, so it's not 100% valid. But to change that now requires a deeper change out of the scope of this series, so let's keep it for now :). Thanks! > +{ > +/* Lower 16 bits is the virtqueue index */ > +uint16_t i = data; > +VirtQueue *vq = &vdev->vq[i]; > + > +if (!vq->vring.desc) { > +return; > +} > + > +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) { > +vq->shadow_avail_wrap_counter = (data >> 31) & 0x1; > +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16) & 0x7FFF; > +} else { > +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16); > >>> > >>> Do we need to do a sanity check for this value? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >> > >> It can't hurt, right? What kind of check did you have in mind? > >> > >> if (vq->shadow_avail_idx >= vq->vring.num) > >> > > > > I'm a little bit lost too. shadow_avail_idx can take all uint16_t > > values. Maybe you meant checking for a valid vq index, Jason? > > > > Thanks! > > > >> Or something else? > >> > +} > +} > + > static void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) > { > if (vq->vring.desc && vq->handle_output) { >
Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] virtio/virtio-pci: Handle extra notification data
On 3/14/24 10:55 AM, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:16 PM Jonah Palmer wrote: On 3/13/24 11:01 PM, Jason Wang wrote: On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:55 PM Jonah Palmer wrote: Add support to virtio-pci devices for handling the extra data sent from the driver to the device when the VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA transport feature has been negotiated. The extra data that's passed to the virtio-pci device when this feature is enabled varies depending on the device's virtqueue layout. In a split virtqueue layout, this data includes: - upper 16 bits: shadow_avail_idx - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index In a packed virtqueue layout, this data includes: - upper 16 bits: 1-bit wrap counter & 15-bit shadow_avail_idx - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index Tested-by: Lei Yang Reviewed-by: Eugenio Pérez Signed-off-by: Jonah Palmer --- hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 10 +++--- hw/virtio/virtio.c | 18 ++ include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c index cb6940fc0e..0f5c3c3b2f 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) { VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = opaque; VirtIODevice *vdev = virtio_bus_get_device(&proxy->bus); -uint16_t vector; +uint16_t vector, vq_idx; hwaddr pa; switch (addr) { @@ -408,8 +408,12 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) vdev->queue_sel = val; break; case VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_NOTIFY: -if (val < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { -virtio_queue_notify(vdev, val); +vq_idx = val; +if (vq_idx < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA)) { +virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(vdev, val); +} +virtio_queue_notify(vdev, vq_idx); } break; case VIRTIO_PCI_STATUS: diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c index d229755eae..bcb9e09df0 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c @@ -2255,6 +2255,24 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) } } +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data) Maybe I didn't explain well, but I think it is better to pass directly idx to a VirtQueue *. That way only the caller needs to check for a valid vq idx, and (my understanding is) the virtio.c interface is migrating to VirtQueue * use anyway. Oh, are you saying to just pass in a VirtQueue *vq instead of VirtIODevice *vdev and get rid of the vq->vring.desc check in the function? +{ +/* Lower 16 bits is the virtqueue index */ +uint16_t i = data; +VirtQueue *vq = &vdev->vq[i]; + +if (!vq->vring.desc) { +return; +} + +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) { +vq->shadow_avail_wrap_counter = (data >> 31) & 0x1; +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16) & 0x7FFF; +} else { +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16); Do we need to do a sanity check for this value? Thanks It can't hurt, right? What kind of check did you have in mind? if (vq->shadow_avail_idx >= vq->vring.num) I'm a little bit lost too. shadow_avail_idx can take all uint16_t values. Maybe you meant checking for a valid vq index, Jason? Thanks! Or something else? +} +} + static void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) { if (vq->vring.desc && vq->handle_output) { diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h index c8f72850bc..53915947a7 100644 --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h @@ -335,6 +335,7 @@ void virtio_queue_update_rings(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); void virtio_init_region_cache(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align); void virtio_queue_notify(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data); uint16_t virtio_queue_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); void virtio_queue_set_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, uint16_t vector); int virtio_queue_set_host_notifier_mr(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, -- 2.39.3
Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] virtio/virtio-pci: Handle extra notification data
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:16 PM Jonah Palmer wrote: > > > > On 3/13/24 11:01 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:55 PM Jonah Palmer > > wrote: > >> > >> Add support to virtio-pci devices for handling the extra data sent > >> from the driver to the device when the VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA > >> transport feature has been negotiated. > >> > >> The extra data that's passed to the virtio-pci device when this > >> feature is enabled varies depending on the device's virtqueue > >> layout. > >> > >> In a split virtqueue layout, this data includes: > >> - upper 16 bits: shadow_avail_idx > >> - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index > >> > >> In a packed virtqueue layout, this data includes: > >> - upper 16 bits: 1-bit wrap counter & 15-bit shadow_avail_idx > >> - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index > >> > >> Tested-by: Lei Yang > >> Reviewed-by: Eugenio Pérez > >> Signed-off-by: Jonah Palmer > >> --- > >> hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 10 +++--- > >> hw/virtio/virtio.c | 18 ++ > >> include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 1 + > >> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > >> index cb6940fc0e..0f5c3c3b2f 100644 > >> --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > >> +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > >> @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t > >> addr, uint32_t val) > >> { > >> VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = opaque; > >> VirtIODevice *vdev = virtio_bus_get_device(&proxy->bus); > >> -uint16_t vector; > >> +uint16_t vector, vq_idx; > >> hwaddr pa; > >> > >> switch (addr) { > >> @@ -408,8 +408,12 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, > >> uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) > >> vdev->queue_sel = val; > >> break; > >> case VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_NOTIFY: > >> -if (val < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { > >> -virtio_queue_notify(vdev, val); > >> +vq_idx = val; > >> +if (vq_idx < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { > >> +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, > >> VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA)) { > >> +virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(vdev, val); > >> +} > >> +virtio_queue_notify(vdev, vq_idx); > >> } > >> break; > >> case VIRTIO_PCI_STATUS: > >> diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c > >> index d229755eae..bcb9e09df0 100644 > >> --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c > >> +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c > >> @@ -2255,6 +2255,24 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int > >> n, int align) > >> } > >> } > >> > >> +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data) Maybe I didn't explain well, but I think it is better to pass directly idx to a VirtQueue *. That way only the caller needs to check for a valid vq idx, and (my understanding is) the virtio.c interface is migrating to VirtQueue * use anyway. > >> +{ > >> +/* Lower 16 bits is the virtqueue index */ > >> +uint16_t i = data; > >> +VirtQueue *vq = &vdev->vq[i]; > >> + > >> +if (!vq->vring.desc) { > >> +return; > >> +} > >> + > >> +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) { > >> +vq->shadow_avail_wrap_counter = (data >> 31) & 0x1; > >> +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16) & 0x7FFF; > >> +} else { > >> +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16); > > > > Do we need to do a sanity check for this value? > > > > Thanks > > > > It can't hurt, right? What kind of check did you have in mind? > > if (vq->shadow_avail_idx >= vq->vring.num) > I'm a little bit lost too. shadow_avail_idx can take all uint16_t values. Maybe you meant checking for a valid vq index, Jason? Thanks! > Or something else? > > >> +} > >> +} > >> + > >> static void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) > >> { > >> if (vq->vring.desc && vq->handle_output) { > >> diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h > >> index c8f72850bc..53915947a7 100644 > >> --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h > >> +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h > >> @@ -335,6 +335,7 @@ void virtio_queue_update_rings(VirtIODevice *vdev, int > >> n); > >> void virtio_init_region_cache(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); > >> void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align); > >> void virtio_queue_notify(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); > >> +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t > >> data); > >> uint16_t virtio_queue_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); > >> void virtio_queue_set_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, uint16_t vector); > >> int virtio_queue_set_host_notifier_mr(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, > >> -- > >> 2.39.3 > >> > > >
Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] virtio/virtio-pci: Handle extra notification data
On 3/13/24 11:01 PM, Jason Wang wrote: On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:55 PM Jonah Palmer wrote: Add support to virtio-pci devices for handling the extra data sent from the driver to the device when the VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA transport feature has been negotiated. The extra data that's passed to the virtio-pci device when this feature is enabled varies depending on the device's virtqueue layout. In a split virtqueue layout, this data includes: - upper 16 bits: shadow_avail_idx - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index In a packed virtqueue layout, this data includes: - upper 16 bits: 1-bit wrap counter & 15-bit shadow_avail_idx - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index Tested-by: Lei Yang Reviewed-by: Eugenio Pérez Signed-off-by: Jonah Palmer --- hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 10 +++--- hw/virtio/virtio.c | 18 ++ include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c index cb6940fc0e..0f5c3c3b2f 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) { VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = opaque; VirtIODevice *vdev = virtio_bus_get_device(&proxy->bus); -uint16_t vector; +uint16_t vector, vq_idx; hwaddr pa; switch (addr) { @@ -408,8 +408,12 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) vdev->queue_sel = val; break; case VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_NOTIFY: -if (val < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { -virtio_queue_notify(vdev, val); +vq_idx = val; +if (vq_idx < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA)) { +virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(vdev, val); +} +virtio_queue_notify(vdev, vq_idx); } break; case VIRTIO_PCI_STATUS: diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c index d229755eae..bcb9e09df0 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c @@ -2255,6 +2255,24 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) } } +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data) +{ +/* Lower 16 bits is the virtqueue index */ +uint16_t i = data; +VirtQueue *vq = &vdev->vq[i]; + +if (!vq->vring.desc) { +return; +} + +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) { +vq->shadow_avail_wrap_counter = (data >> 31) & 0x1; +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16) & 0x7FFF; +} else { +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16); Do we need to do a sanity check for this value? Thanks It can't hurt, right? What kind of check did you have in mind? if (vq->shadow_avail_idx >= vq->vring.num) Or something else? +} +} + static void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) { if (vq->vring.desc && vq->handle_output) { diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h index c8f72850bc..53915947a7 100644 --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h @@ -335,6 +335,7 @@ void virtio_queue_update_rings(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); void virtio_init_region_cache(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align); void virtio_queue_notify(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data); uint16_t virtio_queue_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); void virtio_queue_set_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, uint16_t vector); int virtio_queue_set_host_notifier_mr(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, -- 2.39.3
Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] virtio/virtio-pci: Handle extra notification data
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:55 PM Jonah Palmer wrote: > > Add support to virtio-pci devices for handling the extra data sent > from the driver to the device when the VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA > transport feature has been negotiated. > > The extra data that's passed to the virtio-pci device when this > feature is enabled varies depending on the device's virtqueue > layout. > > In a split virtqueue layout, this data includes: > - upper 16 bits: shadow_avail_idx > - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index > > In a packed virtqueue layout, this data includes: > - upper 16 bits: 1-bit wrap counter & 15-bit shadow_avail_idx > - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index > > Tested-by: Lei Yang > Reviewed-by: Eugenio Pérez > Signed-off-by: Jonah Palmer > --- > hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 10 +++--- > hw/virtio/virtio.c | 18 ++ > include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 1 + > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > index cb6940fc0e..0f5c3c3b2f 100644 > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c > @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t > addr, uint32_t val) > { > VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = opaque; > VirtIODevice *vdev = virtio_bus_get_device(&proxy->bus); > -uint16_t vector; > +uint16_t vector, vq_idx; > hwaddr pa; > > switch (addr) { > @@ -408,8 +408,12 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t > addr, uint32_t val) > vdev->queue_sel = val; > break; > case VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_NOTIFY: > -if (val < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { > -virtio_queue_notify(vdev, val); > +vq_idx = val; > +if (vq_idx < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { > +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA)) { > +virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(vdev, val); > +} > +virtio_queue_notify(vdev, vq_idx); > } > break; > case VIRTIO_PCI_STATUS: > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c > index d229755eae..bcb9e09df0 100644 > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c > @@ -2255,6 +2255,24 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, > int align) > } > } > > +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data) > +{ > +/* Lower 16 bits is the virtqueue index */ > +uint16_t i = data; > +VirtQueue *vq = &vdev->vq[i]; > + > +if (!vq->vring.desc) { > +return; > +} > + > +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) { > +vq->shadow_avail_wrap_counter = (data >> 31) & 0x1; > +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16) & 0x7FFF; > +} else { > +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16); Do we need to do a sanity check for this value? Thanks > +} > +} > + > static void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) > { > if (vq->vring.desc && vq->handle_output) { > diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h > index c8f72850bc..53915947a7 100644 > --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h > +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h > @@ -335,6 +335,7 @@ void virtio_queue_update_rings(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); > void virtio_init_region_cache(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); > void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align); > void virtio_queue_notify(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); > +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data); > uint16_t virtio_queue_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); > void virtio_queue_set_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, uint16_t vector); > int virtio_queue_set_host_notifier_mr(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, > -- > 2.39.3 >
[PATCH v2 1/6] virtio/virtio-pci: Handle extra notification data
Add support to virtio-pci devices for handling the extra data sent from the driver to the device when the VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA transport feature has been negotiated. The extra data that's passed to the virtio-pci device when this feature is enabled varies depending on the device's virtqueue layout. In a split virtqueue layout, this data includes: - upper 16 bits: shadow_avail_idx - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index In a packed virtqueue layout, this data includes: - upper 16 bits: 1-bit wrap counter & 15-bit shadow_avail_idx - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index Tested-by: Lei Yang Reviewed-by: Eugenio Pérez Signed-off-by: Jonah Palmer --- hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 10 +++--- hw/virtio/virtio.c | 18 ++ include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 1 + 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c index cb6940fc0e..0f5c3c3b2f 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) { VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = opaque; VirtIODevice *vdev = virtio_bus_get_device(&proxy->bus); -uint16_t vector; +uint16_t vector, vq_idx; hwaddr pa; switch (addr) { @@ -408,8 +408,12 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) vdev->queue_sel = val; break; case VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_NOTIFY: -if (val < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { -virtio_queue_notify(vdev, val); +vq_idx = val; +if (vq_idx < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA)) { +virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(vdev, val); +} +virtio_queue_notify(vdev, vq_idx); } break; case VIRTIO_PCI_STATUS: diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c index d229755eae..bcb9e09df0 100644 --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c @@ -2255,6 +2255,24 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) } } +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data) +{ +/* Lower 16 bits is the virtqueue index */ +uint16_t i = data; +VirtQueue *vq = &vdev->vq[i]; + +if (!vq->vring.desc) { +return; +} + +if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) { +vq->shadow_avail_wrap_counter = (data >> 31) & 0x1; +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16) & 0x7FFF; +} else { +vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16); +} +} + static void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) { if (vq->vring.desc && vq->handle_output) { diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h index c8f72850bc..53915947a7 100644 --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h @@ -335,6 +335,7 @@ void virtio_queue_update_rings(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); void virtio_init_region_cache(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align); void virtio_queue_notify(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data); uint16_t virtio_queue_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); void virtio_queue_set_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, uint16_t vector); int virtio_queue_set_host_notifier_mr(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, -- 2.39.3