Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] virtio/virtio-pci: Handle extra notification data
Jonah Palmer <[email protected]> Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:16:11 -0400
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.virtio-fs,org.nongnu.qemu-devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 3/13/24 11:01 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:55 PM Jonah Palmer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Add support to virtio-pci devices for handling the extra data sent >> from the driver to the device when the VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA >> transport feature has been negotiated. >> >> The extra data that's passed to the virtio-pci device when this >> feature is enabled varies depending on the device's virtqueue >> layout. >> >> In a split virtqueue layout, this data includes: >> - upper 16 bits: shadow_avail_idx >> - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index >> >> In a packed virtqueue layout, this data includes: >> - upper 16 bits: 1-bit wrap counter & 15-bit shadow_avail_idx >> - lower 16 bits: virtqueue index >> >> Tested-by: Lei Yang <[email protected]> >> Reviewed-by: Eugenio Pérez <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Jonah Palmer <[email protected]> >> --- >> hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c | 10 +++++++--- >> hw/virtio/virtio.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ >> include/hw/virtio/virtio.h | 1 + >> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c >> index cb6940fc0e..0f5c3c3b2f 100644 >> --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c >> +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-pci.c >> @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) >> { >> VirtIOPCIProxy *proxy = opaque; >> VirtIODevice *vdev = virtio_bus_get_device(&proxy->bus); >> - uint16_t vector; >> + uint16_t vector, vq_idx; >> hwaddr pa; >> >> switch (addr) { >> @@ -408,8 +408,12 @@ static void virtio_ioport_write(void *opaque, uint32_t addr, uint32_t val) >> vdev->queue_sel = val; >> break; >> case VIRTIO_PCI_QUEUE_NOTIFY: >> - if (val < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { >> - virtio_queue_notify(vdev, val); >> + vq_idx = val; >> + if (vq_idx < VIRTIO_QUEUE_MAX) { >> + if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_NOTIFICATION_DATA)) { >> + virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(vdev, val); >> + } >> + virtio_queue_notify(vdev, vq_idx); >> } >> break; >> case VIRTIO_PCI_STATUS: >> diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c >> index d229755eae..bcb9e09df0 100644 >> --- a/hw/virtio/virtio.c >> +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio.c >> @@ -2255,6 +2255,24 @@ void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align) >> } >> } >> >> +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data) >> +{ >> + /* Lower 16 bits is the virtqueue index */ >> + uint16_t i = data; >> + VirtQueue *vq = &vdev->vq[i]; >> + >> + if (!vq->vring.desc) { >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + if (virtio_vdev_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_F_RING_PACKED)) { >> + vq->shadow_avail_wrap_counter = (data >> 31) & 0x1; >> + vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16) & 0x7FFF; >> + } else { >> + vq->shadow_avail_idx = (data >> 16); > > Do we need to do a sanity check for this value? > > Thanks > It can't hurt, right? What kind of check did you have in mind? if (vq->shadow_avail_idx >= vq->vring.num) Or something else? >> + } >> +} >> + >> static void virtio_queue_notify_vq(VirtQueue *vq) >> { >> if (vq->vring.desc && vq->handle_output) { >> diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h >> index c8f72850bc..53915947a7 100644 >> --- a/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h >> +++ b/include/hw/virtio/virtio.h >> @@ -335,6 +335,7 @@ void virtio_queue_update_rings(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); >> void virtio_init_region_cache(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); >> void virtio_queue_set_align(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, int align); >> void virtio_queue_notify(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); >> +void virtio_queue_set_shadow_avail_data(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint32_t data); >> uint16_t virtio_queue_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n); >> void virtio_queue_set_vector(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, uint16_t vector); >> int virtio_queue_set_host_notifier_mr(VirtIODevice *vdev, int n, >> -- >> 2.39.3 >> >