On 2/27/19 2:15 PM, Ilya Maximets wrote:
On 27.02.2019 13:02, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
External backends may have specific requests to handle, and so
we don't want the vhost-user lib to handle these requests as
errors.
This patch also catch the case where a request is neither handled
by the external backend nor by the vhost library.
Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>
---
lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
index 36c0c676d..bae5ef1cc 100644
--- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
+++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c
@@ -1924,27 +1924,29 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
}
ret = read_vhost_message(fd, &msg);
- if (ret <= 0 || msg.request.master >= VHOST_USER_MAX) {
+ if (ret <= 0) {
if (ret < 0)
RTE_LOG(ERR, VHOST_CONFIG,
"vhost read message failed\n");
- else if (ret == 0)
+ else
RTE_LOG(INFO, VHOST_CONFIG,
"vhost peer closed\n");
- else
- RTE_LOG(ERR, VHOST_CONFIG,
- "vhost read incorrect message\n");
return -1;
}
ret = 0;
- if (msg.request.master != VHOST_USER_IOTLB_MSG)
- RTE_LOG(INFO, VHOST_CONFIG, "read message %s\n",
- vhost_message_str[msg.request.master]);
- else
- RTE_LOG(DEBUG, VHOST_CONFIG, "read message %s\n",
- vhost_message_str[msg.request.master]);
+ request = msg.request.master;
+ if (request < VHOST_USER_MAX && vhost_message_str[req]) {
+ if (request != VHOST_USER_IOTLB_MSG)
+ RTE_LOG(INFO, VHOST_CONFIG, "read message %s\n",
+ vhost_message_str[request]);
+ else if (
+ RTE_LOG(DEBUG, VHOST_CONFIG, "read message %s\n",
+ vhost_message_str[request]);
There is no need for the 'if' without the body.
Oops, indeed. I was pretty sure I did compile test it, but looking at
the history I didn't.
+ } else {
+ RTE_LOG(INFO, VHOST_CONFIG, "External request %d\n", request);
External requests could be annoying. Maybe we'll need to move them under DBG ?
I'm not sure.
Fair point. I'll change to DBG.
+ }
ret = vhost_user_check_and_alloc_queue_pair(dev, &msg);
if (ret < 0) {
@@ -1960,7 +1962,7 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
* inactive, so it is safe. Otherwise taking the access_lock
* would cause a dead lock.
*/
- switch (msg.request.master) {
+ switch (request) {
case VHOST_USER_SET_FEATURES:
case VHOST_USER_SET_PROTOCOL_FEATURES:
case VHOST_USER_SET_OWNER:
@@ -1985,6 +1987,7 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
}
+ ret = RTE_VHOST_MSG_RESULT_ERR;
This will break the 'vhost_crypto', because it has no 'pre_msg_handler'
and master will skip to 'post_msg_handler', but it will not be called
because current status is ERR.
Thanks for catching it.
Maybe it's easier to introduce RTE_VHOST_MSG_RESULT_NOT_HANDLED and convert
it to ERR before the reply ?
This will require changing the pre_msg_handlers to return
RTE_VHOST_MSG_RESULT_NOT_HANDLED if message wasn't recognized.
And we'll possibly be able to drop the 'skip_master' in this case.
Ok, that means breaking the API, but it is still experimental so not a
blocker.
I like the idea because it would also make it possible to add some debug
prints.
I'll post new iteration this morning.
Thanks,
Maxime
if (dev->extern_ops.pre_msg_handle) {
ret = (*dev->extern_ops.pre_msg_handle)(dev->vid,
(void *)&msg, &skip_master);
@@ -1997,7 +2000,6 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd)
goto skip_to_post_handle;
}
- request = msg.request.master;
if (request > VHOST_USER_NONE && request < VHOST_USER_MAX) {
if (!vhost_message_handlers[request])
goto skip_to_post_handle;
