Hi On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Prerna Saxena <saxenap....@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Prerna Saxena <prerna.sax...@nutanix.com> > > The current vhost-user protocol requires the client to send responses to only > few commands. For the remaining commands, it is impossible for QEMU to know > the status of the requested operation -- ie, did it succeed at all, and if > so, at what time. > > This is inconvenient, and can also lead to races. As an example: > > (1) qemu sends a SET_MEM_TABLE to the backend (eg, a vhost-user net > application) and SET_MEM_TABLE doesn't require a reply according to the spec. > (2) qemu commits the memory to the guest. > (3) guest issues an I/O operation over a new memory region which was > configured on (1) > (4) The application hasn't yet remapped the memory, but it sees the I/O > request. > (5) The application cannot satisfy the request because it doesn't know about > those GPAs > > Note that the kernel implementation does not suffer from this limitation > since messages are sent via an ioctl(). The ioctl() blocks until the backend > (eg. vhost-net) completes the command and returns (with an error code). > > Changing the behaviour of current vhost-user commands would break existing > applications. This patch introduces a protocol extension, > VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK. This feature, if negotiated, allows QEMU to > annotate messages to the application that it seeks a response for. The > application must then respond to qemu by providing a status about the > requested operation.
I like the idea, as I encountered a similar issue in my "vhost-user-gpu" development (which I worked around by sending a dump GET_FEATURES.. to sync things). But I question the need to have a flag per message. I think if the protocol feature is negociated, all messages should have a reply. Why do you want it to be per-message? thanks -- Marc-André Lureau
