Re: [PATCH v14 7/9] vhost-user: add vhost-user

[Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com>]

On 27/11/2024 11:03, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:48:41 +0100
> Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 27/11/2024 10:45, Stefano Brivio wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:09:53 +0100
>>> Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> On 27/11/2024 05:47, Stefano Brivio wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:43:34 +0100
>>>>> Laurent Vivier <lvivier@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>   
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * tcp_vu_send_flag() - Send segment with flags to vhost-user (no payload)
>>>>>> + * @c:		Execution context
>>>>>> + * @conn:	Connection pointer
>>>>>> + * @flags:	TCP flags: if not set, send segment only if ACK is due
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Return: negative error code on connection reset, 0 otherwise
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +int tcp_vu_send_flag(const struct ctx *c, struct tcp_tap_conn *conn, int flags)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	struct vu_dev *vdev = c->vdev;
>>>>>> +	struct vu_virtq *vq = &vdev->vq[VHOST_USER_RX_QUEUE];
>>>>>> +	const struct flowside *tapside = TAPFLOW(conn);
>>>>>> +	size_t l2len, l4len, optlen, hdrlen;
>>>>>> +	struct vu_virtq_element flags_elem[2];
>>>>>> +	struct tcp_payload_t *payload;
>>>>>> +	struct ipv6hdr *ip6h = NULL;
>>>>>> +	struct iovec flags_iov[2];
>>>>>> +	struct iphdr *iph = NULL;
>>>>>> +	struct ethhdr *eh;
>>>>>> +	uint32_t seq;
>>>>>> +	int elem_cnt;
>>>>>> +	int nb_ack;
>>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	hdrlen = tcp_vu_hdrlen(CONN_V6(conn));
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	vu_set_element(&flags_elem[0], NULL, &flags_iov[0]);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	elem_cnt = vu_collect(vdev, vq, &flags_elem[0], 1,
>>>>>> +			      hdrlen + sizeof(struct tcp_syn_opts), NULL);
>>>>>
>>>>> Oops, I made this crash, by starting a number of iperf3 client threads
>>>>> on the host:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ iperf3 -c localhost -p 6001 -Z -l 500 -w 256M -t 600 -P20
>>>>>
>>>>> with matching server in the guest, then terminating QEMU while the test
>>>>> is running.
>>>>>
>>>>> Details (I saw it first, then I reproduced it under gdb):
>>>>>
>>>>> accepted connection from PID 3115463
>>>>> NDP: received RS, sending RA
>>>>> DHCP: offer to discover
>>>>>        from 52:54:00:12:34:56
>>>>> DHCP: ack to request
>>>>>        from 52:54:00:12:34:56
>>>>> NDP: sending unsolicited RA, next in 212s
>>>>> Client connection closed
>>>>>
>>>>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
>>>>> 0x00005555555884f5 in vring_avail_idx (vq=0x555559343f10 <vdev_storage+1296>) at virtio.c:138
>>>>> 138		vq->shadow_avail_idx = le16toh(vq->vring.avail->idx);
>>>>> (gdb) list
>>>>> 133	 *
>>>>> 134	 * Return: the available ring index of the given virtqueue
>>>>> 135	 */
>>>>> 136	static inline uint16_t vring_avail_idx(struct vu_virtq *vq)
>>>>> 137	{
>>>>> 138		vq->shadow_avail_idx = le16toh(vq->vring.avail->idx);
>>>>> 139	
>>>>> 140		return vq->shadow_avail_idx;
>>>>> 141	}
>>>>> 142	
>>>>> (gdb) bt
>>>>> #0  0x00005555555884f5 in vring_avail_idx (vq=0x555559343f10 <vdev_storage+1296>) at virtio.c:138
>>>>> #1  vu_queue_empty (vq=vq@entry=0x555559343f10 <vdev_storage+1296>) at virtio.c:290
>>>>> #2  vu_queue_pop (dev=dev@entry=0x555559343a00 <vdev_storage>, vq=vq@entry=0x555559343f10 <vdev_storage+1296>, elem=elem@entry=0x7ffffff6f510) at virtio.c:505
>>>>> #3  0x0000555555588c8c in vu_collect (vdev=vdev@entry=0x555559343a00 <vdev_storage>, vq=vq@entry=0x555559343f10 <vdev_storage+1296>, elem=elem@entry=0x7ffffff6f510, max_elem=max_elem@entry=1,
>>>>>        size=size@entry=74, frame_size=frame_size@entry=0x0) at vu_common.c:86
>>>>> #4  0x000055555557e00e in tcp_vu_send_flag (c=0x7ffffff6f7a0, conn=0x5555555bd2d0 <flowtab+2160>, flags=4) at tcp_vu.c:116
>>>>> #5  0x0000555555578125 in tcp_send_flag (flags=4, conn=0x5555555bd2d0 <flowtab+2160>, c=0x7ffffff6f7a0) at tcp.c:1278
>>>>> #6  tcp_rst_do (conn=<optimized out>, c=<optimized out>) at tcp.c:1293
>>>>> #7  tcp_timer_handler (c=c@entry=0x7ffffff6f7a0, ref=..., ref@entry=...) at tcp.c:2266
>>>>> #8  0x0000555555558f26 in main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>) at passt.c:342
>>>>> (gdb) p *vq
>>>>> $1 = {vring = {num = 256, desc = 0x0, avail = 0x0, used = 0x0, log_guest_addr = 4338774592, flags = 0}, last_avail_idx = 35133, shadow_avail_idx = 35133, used_idx = 35133, signalled_used = 0,
>>>>>      signalled_used_valid = false, notification = true, inuse = 0, call_fd = -1, kick_fd = -1, err_fd = -1, enable = 1, started = false, vra = {index = 0, flags = 0, desc_user_addr = 139660501995520,
>>>>>        used_user_addr = 139660502000192, avail_user_addr = 139660501999616, log_guest_addr = 4338774592}}
>>>>> (gdb) p *vq->vring.avail
>>>>> Cannot access memory at address 0x0
>>>>>
>>>>> ...so we're sending a RST segment to the guest, but the ring doesn't
>>>>> exist anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, I still have the gdb session running, if you need something
>>>>> else out of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, I guess we should eventually introduce a more comprehensive
>>>>> handling of the case where the guest suddenly terminates (not specific
>>>>> to vhost-user), but given that we have vu_cleanup() working as expected
>>>>> in this case, I wonder if we shouldn't simply avoid calling
>>>>> vring_avail_idx() (it has a single caller) by checking for !vring.avail
>>>>> in the caller, or something like that.
>>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think it's the lines I removed during the reviews:
>>>>
>>>>           if (!vq->vring.avail)
>>>>                   return true;
>>>
>>> Ah, right:
>>>
>>>     https://archives.passt.top/passt-dev/20241114163859.7eeafa38@elisabeth/
>>>
>>> ...so, at least in our case, it's more than "sanity checks" after all.
>>> :) Well, I guess it depends on the definition.
>>>    
>>>> Could you try to checkout virtio.c from v11?
>>>
>>> That would take a rather lengthy rebase, but I tried to reintroduce all
>>> the checks you had:
>>>
>>> --
>>> diff --git a/virtio.c b/virtio.c
>>> index 6a97435..0598ff4 100644
>>> --- a/virtio.c
>>> +++ b/virtio.c
>>> @@ -284,6 +284,9 @@ static int virtqueue_read_next_desc(const struct vring_desc *desc,
>>>     */
>>>    bool vu_queue_empty(struct vu_virtq *vq)
>>>    {
>>> +	if (!vq->vring.avail)
>>> +		return true;
>>> +
>>>    	if (vq->shadow_avail_idx != vq->last_avail_idx)
>>>    		return false;
>>>    
>>> @@ -327,6 +330,9 @@ static bool vring_can_notify(const struct vu_dev *dev, struct vu_virtq *vq)
>>>     */
>>>    void vu_queue_notify(const struct vu_dev *dev, struct vu_virtq *vq)
>>>    {
>>> +	if (!vq->vring.avail)
>>> +		return;
>>> +
>>>    	if (!vring_can_notify(dev, vq)) {
>>>    		debug("vhost-user: virtqueue can skip notify...");
>>>    		return;
>>> @@ -502,6 +508,9 @@ int vu_queue_pop(struct vu_dev *dev, struct vu_virtq *vq, struct vu_virtq_elemen
>>>    	unsigned int head;
>>>    	int ret;
>>>    
>>> +	if (!vq->vring.avail)
>>> +		return -1;
>>> +
>>>    	if (vu_queue_empty(vq))
>>>    		return -1;
>>>    
>>> @@ -591,6 +600,9 @@ void vu_queue_fill_by_index(struct vu_virtq *vq, unsigned int index,
>>>    {
>>>    	struct vring_used_elem uelem;
>>>    
>>> +	if (!vq->vring.avail)
>>> +		return;
>>> +
>>>    	idx = (idx + vq->used_idx) % vq->vring.num;
>>>    
>>>    	uelem.id = htole32(index);
>>> @@ -633,6 +645,9 @@ void vu_queue_flush(struct vu_virtq *vq, unsigned int count)
>>>    {
>>>    	uint16_t old, new;
>>>    
>>> +	if (!vq->vring.avail)
>>> +		return;
>>> +
>>>    	/* Make sure buffer is written before we update index. */
>>>    	smp_wmb();
>>>    
>>> --
>>>
>>> and it's all fine with those, I tried doing a few nasty things and
>>> didn't observe any issue.
>>>
>>> Any check I missed? Do you want to submit it as follow-up patch? I can
>>> also do that. I'd rather (still) avoid a re-post of v14 if possible.
>>
>> As you prefer. Let me know.
> 
> It would save me some time if you could... it should be based on v14 as
> it is.

I can.

> 
> I didn't have time to take care of gcc warnings on 32-bit and of the
> build failure on musl, yet.
> 
I will do too.

Do you want them before to merge?

Thanks,
Laurent