Description copied from Linux kernel commit from Gustavo A. R. Silva
(see [3]):
--v-- description start --v--
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to
declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible
array member [1], introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler
warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the
structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined
behavior bugs from being unadvertenly introduced [2] to the
Linux codebase from now on.
--^-- description end --^--
Do the similar housekeeping in the QEMU codebase (which uses
C99 since commit 7be41675f7).
All these instances of code were found with the help of the
following command (then manual analysis, without modifying
structures only having a single flexible array member, such
QEDTable in block/qed.h):
git grep -F '[0];'
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=76497732932f
[3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux.git/commit/?id=17642a2fbd2c1
Inspired-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
For good reason, vhost-user is currently built asynchronously, that
way better performance can be obtained. However, for certain use
cases such as simulation, this is problematic.
Consider an event-based simulation in which both the device and CPU
have scheduled according to a simulation "calendar". Now, consider
the CPU sending I/O to the device, over a vring in the vhost-user
protocol. In this case, the CPU must wait for the vring interrupt
to have been processed by the device, so that the device is able to
put an entry onto the simulation calendar to obtain time to handle
the interrupt. Note that this doesn't mean the I/O is actually done
at this time, it just means that the handling of it is scheduled
before the CPU can continue running.
This cannot be done with the asynchronous eventfd based vring kick
and call design.
Extend the protocol slightly, so that a message can be used for kick
and call instead, if VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_INBAND_NOTIFICATIONS is
negotiated. This in itself doesn't guarantee synchronisation, but both
sides can also negotiate VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK and thus get
a reply to this message by setting the need_reply flag, and ensure
synchronisation this way.
To really use it in both directions, VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_SLAVE_REQ
is also needed.
Since it is used for simulation purposes and too many messages on
the socket can lock up the virtual machine, document that this should
only be used together with the mentioned features.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Message-Id: <20200123081708.7817-6-johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Add a VHOST_USER_RESET_DEVICE message which will reset the vhost user
backend. Disabling all rings, and resetting all internal state, ready
for the backend to be reinitialized.
A backend has to report it supports this features with the
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_RESET_DEVICE protocol feature bit. If it does
so, the new message is used instead of sending a RESET_OWNER which has
had inconsistent implementations.
Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@nutanix.com>
Signed-off-by: Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Message-Id: <1572385083-5254-2-git-send-email-raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
This patch is to add standard commands defined in docs/interop/vhost-user.rst
For vhost-user-* program
Signed-off-by: Micky Yun Chan (michiboo) <chanmickyyun@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <20191209015331.5455-1-chanmickyyun@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
The vhost-user specification does not explain when
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_MQ must be implemented. This may lead
implementors of vhost-user masters to believe that this protocol feature
is required for any device that has multiple virtqueues. That would be
a mistake since existing vhost-user slaves offer multiple virtqueues but
do not advertise VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_MQ.
For example, a vhost-net device with one rx/tx queue pair is not
multiqueue. The slave does not need to advertise
VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_MQ. Therefore the master must assume it has these
virtqueues and cannot rely on askingt the slave how many virtqueues
exist.
Extend the specification to explain the different between true
multiqueue and regular devices with a fixed virtqueue layout.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20190624091304.666-1-stefanha@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
The "Multiple queue support" section makes references to vhost-user-net
"queue pairs". This is confusing for two reasons:
1. This actually applies to all device types, not just vhost-user-net.
2. VHOST_USER_GET_QUEUE_NUM returns the number of virtqueues, not the
number of queue pairs.
Reword the section so that the vhost-user-net specific part is relegated
to the very end: we acknowledge that vhost-user-net historically
automatically enabled the first queue pair.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20190626074815.19994-5-stefanha@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Add a new vhost-user message to give a unix socket to a vhost-user
backend for GPU display updates.
Back when I started that work, I added a new GPU channel because the
vhost-user protocol wasn't bidirectional. Since then, there is a
vhost-user-slave channel for the slave to send requests to the master.
We could extend it with GPU messages. However, the GPU protocol is
quite orthogonal to vhost-user, thus I chose to have a new dedicated
channel.
See vhost-user-gpu.rst for the protocol details.
Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Message-id: 20190524130946.31736-2-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20190315180735.13096-1-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
