On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:18:52 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 03:14:00PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:17:48 +0200
> > Andrea Bolognani <abolo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2019-07-30 at 13:35 +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 12:25:30 +0200
> > > > Andrea Bolognani <abolo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > Can you please make sure virtio-mmio uses the existing interface
> > > > > instead of introducing a new one?
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, I really hate virtio-pci's disable-modern/disable-legacy... for a
> > > > starter, what is 'modern'? Will we have 'ultra-modern' in the future?
> > > >
> > >
> > > AIUI the modern/legacy terminology is part of the VirtIO spec, so
> > > while I agree that it's not necessarily the least prone to ambiguity
> > > at least it's well defined.
> >
> > Legacy is, modern isn't :) Devices/drivers are conforming to the
> > standard, I don't think there's a special term for that.
>
> Right, if we followed the spec, disable-modern would have been
> force-legacy.
>
> I'm fine with adding force-legacy for everyone and asking tools to
> transition if there. Document it's same as disable-modern for pci.
> Cornelia?
'force-legacy' is certainly better than 'disable-modern'. Not sure if
it's much of a gain at this point in time, and it does not really add
anything over limiting the revision to 0 for ccw, but I don't really
object to it.
>
>
> > >
> > > > It is also quite backwards with the 'disable' terminology.
> > >
> > > That's also true. I never claimed the way virtio-pci does it is
> > > perfect!
> > >
> > > > We also have a different mechanism for virtio-ccw ('max_revision',
> > > > which covers a bit more than virtio-1; it doesn't have a 'min_revision',
> > > > as negotiating the revision down is fine), so I don't see why
> > > > virtio-mmio should replicate the virtio-pci mechanism.
> > > >
> > > > Also, IIUC, virtio-mmio does not have transitional devices, but either
> > > > version 1 (legacy) or version 2 (virtio-1). It probably makes more
> > > > sense to expose the device version instead; either as an exact version
> > > > (especially if it isn't supposed to go up without incompatible
> > > > changes), or with some min/max concept (where version 1 would stand a
> > > > bit alone, so that would probably be a bit awkward.)
> > >
> > > I think that if reinventing the wheel is generally agreed not to be
> > > a good idea, then it stands to reason that reinventing it twice can
> > > only be described as absolute madness :)
> > >
> > > We should have a single way to control the VirtIO protocol version
> > > that works for all VirtIO devices, regardless of transport. We might
> > > even want to have virtio-*-{device,ccw}-non-transitional to mirror
> > > the existing virtio-*-pci-non-transitional.
> > >
> > > FWIW, libvirt already implements support for (non)-transitional
> > > virtio-pci devices using either the dedicated devices or the base
> > > virtio-pci plus the disable-{modern,legacy} attributes.
> >
> > One problem (besides my dislike of the existing virtio-pci
> > interfaces :) is that pci, ccw, and mmio all have slightly different
> > semantics.
> >
> > - pci: If we need to keep legacy support around, we cannot enable some
> > features (IIRC, pci-e, maybe others as well.) That means transitional
> > devices are in some ways inferior to virtio-1 only devices, so it
> > makes a lot of sense to be able to configure devices without legacy
> > support. The differences between legacy and virtio-1 are quite large.
> > - ccw: Has revisions negotiated between device and driver; virtio-1
> > requires revision 1 or higher. (Legacy drivers that don't know the
> > concept of revisions automatically get revision 0.) Differences
> > between legacy and virtio-1 are mostly virtqueue endianness and some
> > control structures.
> > - mmio: Has device versions offered by the device, the driver can take
> > it or leave it. No transitional devices. Differences don't look as
> > large as the ones for pci, either.
> >
> > So, if we were to duplicate the same scheme as for pci for ccw and mmio
> > as well, we'd get
> >
> > - ccw: devices that support revision 0 only (disable-modern), that act
> > as today, or that support at least revision 1 (disable-legacy). We
> > still need to keep max_revision around for backwards compatibility.
> > Legacy only makes sense for compat machines (although this is
> > equivalent to max_revision 0); I don't see a reason why you would
> > want virtio-1 only devices, unless you'd want to rip out legacy
> > support in QEMU completely.
>
> Reduce security attack surface slightly. Save some cycles
> (down the road) on branches in the endian-ness handling.
Most of that stuff is actually in the core code, right? Ripping out
legacy will have much more impact outside of ccw, I guess.
> Make sure your guests
> are all up to date in preparation to the day when legacy will go away.
If legacy goes away, legacy guests will be busted anyway :)
(There should not be many, if any, of these -- ccw switched on virtio-1
by default quite some time ago, and the s390x legacy virtio transport
was s390-virtio anyway :)
>
> Not a huge win, for sure, but hey - it's something.
>
> > - mmio: devices that support version 1 (disable-modern), or version 2
> > (disable-legacy). You cannot have both at the same time. Whether this
> > makes sense depends on whether there will be a version 3 in the
> > future.
> >
> > So, this might make some sense for mmio; for ccw, I don't see any
> > advantages other than confusing people further...
