On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 9:05 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 08:52:50AM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 8:33 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 08:08:31AM +0200, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:25 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:14:40AM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:29 AM Michael S. Tsirkin > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 03:06:21PM +0200, Eugenio Pérez wrote: > > > > > > > > An userland device implemented through VDUSE could take rtnl > > > > > > > > forever if > > > > > > > > the virtio-net driver is running on top of virtio_vdpa. Let's > > > > > > > > break the > > > > > > > > device if it does not return the buffer in a > > > > > > > > longer-than-assumible > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So now I can't debug qemu with gdb because guest dies :( > > > > > > > Let's not break valid use-cases please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead, solve it in vduse, probably by handling cvq within > > > > > > > kernel. > > > > > > > > > > > > Would a shadow control virtqueue implementation in the VDUSE driver > > > > > > work? > > > > > > It would ack systematically messages sent by the Virtio-net driver, > > > > > > and so assume the userspace application will Ack them. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the userspace application handles the message, if the handling > > > > > > fails, > > > > > > it somehow marks the device as broken? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Maxime > > > > > > > > > > Yes but it's a bit more convoluted than just acking them. > > > > > Once you use the buffer you can get another one and so on > > > > > with no limit. > > > > > One fix is to actually maintain device state in the > > > > > kernel, update it, and then notify userspace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought of implementing this approach at first, but it has two > > > > drawbacks. > > > > > > > > The first one: it's racy. Let's say the driver updates the MAC filter, > > > > VDUSE timeout occurs, the guest receives the fail, and then the device > > > > replies with an OK. There is no way for the device or VDUSE to update > > > > the driver. > > > > > > There's no timeout. Kernel can guarantee executing all requests. > > > > > > > I don't follow this. How should the VDUSE kernel module act if the > > VDUSE userland device does not use the CVQ buffer then? > > First I am not sure a VQ is the best interface for talking to userspace. > But assuming yes - just avoid sending more data, send it later after > userspace used the buffer. >
Let me take a step back, I think I didn't describe the scenario well enough. We have a VDUSE device, and then the same host is interacting with the device through the virtio_net driver over virtio_vdpa. Then, the virtio_net driver sends a control command though its CVQ, so it *takes the RTNL*. That command reaches the VDUSE CVQ. It does not matter if the VDUSE device in the userland processes the commands through a CVQ, reading the vduse character device, or another system. The question is: what to do if the VDUSE device does not process that command in a timely manner? Should we just let the RTNL be taken forever?
