On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 10:17:56AM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 8:21 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 08:00:00AM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 2:47 PM Eugenio Perez Martin > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 11:15 PM Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Commit f7728002c1c7 ("virtio_ring: fix return code on DMA mapping > > > > > fails") moved virtqueue_add_split() and > > > > > virtqueue_add_indirect_packed() > > > > > to -ENOMEM, because virtio_queue_rq() maps -EIO to BLK_STS_IOERR and > > > > > the request fails. We still return -EIO from virtqueue_add_packed(), > > > > > and virtqueue_add_packed_in_order() copied that when it was added > > > > > later. > > > > > > > > > > Guests that bounce their I/O through swiotlb (SEV-SNP, TDX, s390 > > > > > secure > > > > > execution) run the pool out with enough I/O in flight. On a split ring > > > > > virtio_queue_rq() reports BLK_STS_RESOURCE and the block layer > > > > > requeues > > > > > the request. On a packed ring virtio_queue_rq() reports BLK_STS_IOERR > > > > > instead and the error reaches the filesystem. > > > > > > > > > > Return -ENOMEM from the packed unmap_release paths too. Both are > > > > > reached > > > > > from a single goto on a failed mapping, which is where > > > > > vring_map_one_sg() already produces -ENOMEM. > > > > > > > > > > That way every ring layout reports the same errno, and the block layer > > > > > requeues the request instead of failing it. > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: f7728002c1c7 ("virtio_ring: fix return code on DMA mapping > > > > > fails") > > > > > Fixes: f6a15d854986 ("virtio_ring: add in order support") > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Eugenio Pérez <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > Even if I'd like to see this merged, I'm having second thoughts > > > because it introduces userland visible changes in some drivers. Are > > > them acceptable? > > > > I mean, fixing the kernel for the userspace is kinda what we do, right? > > > > Yes, but changing error codes returned from the kernel to userland > always reminds me of this old thread so I wanted to give a heads up: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75 > > Now I don't think we're in the same situation, though; probably no > userland app checks the actual errno in these operations. However, the > userland apps are not limited to VMMs; they include actual subsystem > users that do not know the backend is a virtio device, so the base is > large. If you still think that will not be a problem, I'm totally in > :). > > Thanks!
Well actual subsystem users for sure expect EIO on actual io errors no?
