Re: [PATCH 7/7] vhost-user: call VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE synchronously

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 02:49, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 11:37:50AM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 09:30, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/30/23 14:10, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 at 14:31, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> (1) The virtio-1.0 specification
> > > >> <http://docs.oasis-open.org/virtio/virtio/v1.0/virtio-v1.0.html> 
> > > >> writes:
> > > >>
> > > >>> 3     General Initialization And Device Operation
> > > >>> 3.1   Device Initialization
> > > >>> 3.1.1 Driver Requirements: Device Initialization
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [...]
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 7. Perform device-specific setup, including discovery of virtqueues 
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>    the device, optional per-bus setup, reading and possibly writing 
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>    device’s virtio configuration space, and population of virtqueues.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 8. Set the DRIVER_OK status bit. At this point the device is “live”.
> > > >>
> > > >> and
> > > >>
> > > >>> 4         Virtio Transport Options
> > > >>> 4.1       Virtio Over PCI Bus
> > > >>> 4.1.4     Virtio Structure PCI Capabilities
> > > >>> 4.1.4.3   Common configuration structure layout
> > > >>> 4.1.4.3.2 Driver Requirements: Common configuration structure layout
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [...]
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The driver MUST configure the other virtqueue fields before enabling 
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> virtqueue with queue_enable.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [...]
> > > >>
> > > >> These together mean that the following sub-sequence of steps is valid 
> > > >> for
> > > >> a virtio-1.0 guest driver:
> > > >>
> > > >> (1.1) set "queue_enable" for the needed queues as the final part of 
> > > >> device
> > > >> initialization step (7),
> > > >>
> > > >> (1.2) set DRIVER_OK in step (8),
> > > >>
> > > >> (1.3) immediately start sending virtio requests to the device.
> > > >>
> > > >> (2) When vhost-user is enabled, and the VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES
> > > >> special virtio feature is negotiated, then virtio rings start in 
> > > >> disabled
> > > >> state, according to
> > > >> <https://qemu-project.gitlab.io/qemu/interop/vhost-user.html#ring-states>.
> > > >> In this case, explicit VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE messages are needed 
> > > >> for
> > > >> enabling vrings.
> > > >>
> > > >> Therefore setting "queue_enable" from the guest (1.1) is a *control 
> > > >> plane*
> > > >> operation, which travels from the guest through QEMU to the vhost-user
> > > >> backend, using a unix domain socket.
> > > >>
> > > >> Whereas sending a virtio request (1.3) is a *data plane* operation, 
> > > >> which
> > > >> evades QEMU -- it travels from guest to the vhost-user backend via
> > > >> eventfd.
> > > >>
> > > >> This means that steps (1.1) and (1.3) travel through different 
> > > >> channels,
> > > >> and their relative order can be reversed, as perceived by the 
> > > >> vhost-user
> > > >> backend.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's exactly what happens when OVMF's virtiofs driver (VirtioFsDxe) 
> > > >> runs
> > > >> against the Rust-language virtiofsd version 1.7.2. (Which uses version
> > > >> 0.10.1 of the vhost-user-backend crate, and version 0.8.1 of the vhost
> > > >> crate.)
> > > >>
> > > >> Namely, when VirtioFsDxe binds a virtiofs device, it goes through the
> > > >> device initialization steps (i.e., control plane operations), and
> > > >> immediately sends a FUSE_INIT request too (i.e., performs a data plane
> > > >> operation). In the Rust-language virtiofsd, this creates a race between
> > > >> two components that run *concurrently*, i.e., in different threads or
> > > >> processes:
> > > >>
> > > >> - Control plane, handling vhost-user protocol messages:
> > > >>
> > > >>   The "VhostUserSlaveReqHandlerMut::set_vring_enable" method
> > > >>   [crates/vhost-user-backend/src/handler.rs] handles
> > > >>   VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE messages, and updates each vring's 
> > > >> "enabled"
> > > >>   flag according to the message processed.
> > > >>
> > > >> - Data plane, handling virtio / FUSE requests:
> > > >>
> > > >>   The "VringEpollHandler::handle_event" method
> > > >>   [crates/vhost-user-backend/src/event_loop.rs] handles the incoming
> > > >>   virtio / FUSE request, consuming the virtio kick at the same time. If
> > > >>   the vring's "enabled" flag is set, the virtio / FUSE request is
> > > >>   processed genuinely. If the vring's "enabled" flag is clear, then the
> > > >>   virtio / FUSE request is discarded.
> > > >
> > > > Why is virtiofsd monitoring the virtqueue and discarding requests
> > > > while it's disabled?
> > >
> > > That's what the vhost-user spec requires:
> > >
> > > https://qemu-project.gitlab.io/qemu/interop/vhost-user.html#ring-states
> > >
> > > """
> > > started but disabled: the back-end must process the ring without causing
> > > any side effects. For example, for a networking device, in the disabled
> > > state the back-end must not supply any new RX packets, but must process
> > > and discard any TX packets.
> > > """
> > >
> > > This state is different from "stopped", where "the back-end must not
> > > process the ring at all".
> > >
> > > The spec also says,
> > >
> > > """
> > > If VHOST_USER_F_PROTOCOL_FEATURES has been negotiated, the ring is
> > > initialized in a disabled state and is enabled by
> > > VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE with parameter 1.
> > > """
> > >
> > > AFAICT virtiofsd follows this requirement.
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> > You documented the disabled ring state in QEMU commit commit
> > c61f09ed855b5009f816242ce281fd01586d4646 ("vhost-user: clarify start
> > and enable") where virtio-net devices discard tx buffers. The disabled
> > state seems to be specific to vhost-user and not covered in the VIRTIO
> > specification.
> >
> > Do you remember what the purpose of the disabled state was? Why is it
> > necessary to discard tx buffers instead of postponing ring processing
> > until the virtqueue is enabled?
> >
> > My concern is that the semantics are unclear for virtqueue types that
> > are different from virtio-net rx/tx. Even the virtio-net controlq
> > would be problematic - should buffers be silently discarded with
> > VIRTIO_NET_OK or should they fail?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Stefan
>
> I think I got it now.
> This weird state happens when linux first queues packets
> on multiple queues, then changes max queues to 1, queued packets need
> to still be freed eventually.

Can you explain what is happening in the guest driver, QEMU, and the
vhost-user-net device in more detail? I don't understand the scenario.

> Yes, I am not sure this can apply to devices or queue types
> other than virtio net. Maybe.
>
> When we say:
>     must process the ring without causing any side effects.
> then I think it would be better to say
>     must process the ring if it can be done without causing
>     guest visible side effects.

Completing a tx buffer is guest-visible, so I'm confused by this statement.

> processing rx ring would have a side effect of causing
> guest to get malformed buffers, so we don't process it.

Why are they malformed? Do you mean the rx buffers are stale (the
guest driver has changed the number of queues and doesn't expect to
receive them anymore)?

> processing command queue - we can't fail for sure since
> that is guest visible. but practically we don't do this
> for cvq.
>
> what should happen for virtiofsd? I don't know -
> I am guessing discarding would have a side effect
> so should not happen.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > This seems like a bug in the vhost-user backend to me.
> > >
> > > I didn't want to exclude that possiblity; that's why I included Eugenio,
> > > German, Liu Jiang, and Sergio in the CC list.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > When the virtqueue is disabled, don't monitor the kickfd.
> > > >
> > > > When the virtqueue transitions from disabled to enabled, the control
> > > > plane should self-trigger the kickfd so that any available buffers
> > > > will be processed.
> > > >
> > > > QEMU uses this scheme to switch between vhost/IOThreads and built-in
> > > > virtqueue kick processing.
> > > >
> > > > This approach is more robust than relying buffers being enqueued after
> > > > the virtqueue is enabled.
> > >
> > > I'm happy to drop the series if the virtiofsd maintainers agree that the
> > > bug is in virtiofsd, and can propose a design to fix it. (I do think
> > > that such a fix would require an architectural change.)
> > >
> > > FWIW, my own interpretation of the vhost-user spec (see above) was that
> > > virtiofsd was right to behave the way it did, and that there was simply
> > > no way to prevent out-of-order delivery other than synchronizing the
> > > guest end-to-end with the vhost-user backend, concerning
> > > VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE.
> > >
> > > This end-to-end synchronization is present "naturally" in vhost-net,
> > > where ioctl()s are automatically synchronous -- in fact *all* operations
> > > on the control plane are synchronous. (Which is just a different way to
> > > say that the guest is tightly coupled with the control plane.)
> > >
> > > Note that there has been at least one race like this before; see commit
> > > 699f2e535d93 ("vhost: make SET_VRING_ADDR, SET_FEATURES send replies",
> > > 2021-09-04). Basically every pre-existent call to enforce_reply() is a
> > > cover-up for the vhost-user spec turning (somewhat recklessly?) most
> > > operations into async ones.
> > >
> > > At some point this became apparent and so the REPLY_ACK flag was
> > > introduced; see commit ca525ce5618b ("vhost-user: Introduce a new
> > > protocol feature REPLY_ACK.", 2016-08-10). (That commit doesn't go into
> > > details, but I'm pretty sure there was a similar race around 
> > > SET_MEM_TABLE!)
> > >
> > > BTW even if we drop this series for QEMU, I don't think it will have
> > > been in vain. The first few patches are cleanups which could be merged
> > > for their own sake. And the last patch is essentially the proof of the
> > > problem statement / analysis. It can be considered an elaborate bug
> > > report for virtiofsd, *if* we decide the bug is in virtiofsd. I did have
> > > that avenue in mind as well, when writing the commit message / patch.
> > >
> > > For now I'm going to post v2 -- that's not to say that I'm dismissing
> > > your feedback (see above!), just want to get the latest version on-list.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Laszlo
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Stefan
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Note that OVMF enables the queue *first*, and sends FUSE_INIT *second*.
> > > >> However, if the data plane processor in virtiofsd wins the race, then 
> > > >> it
> > > >> sees the FUSE_INIT *before* the control plane processor took notice of
> > > >> VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE and green-lit the queue for the data plane
> > > >> processor. Therefore the latter drops FUSE_INIT on the floor, and goes
> > > >> back to waiting for further virtio / FUSE requests with epoll_wait.
> > > >> Meanwhile OVMF is stuck waiting for the FUSET_INIT response -- a 
> > > >> deadlock.
> > > >>
> > > >> The deadlock is not deterministic. OVMF hangs infrequently during first
> > > >> boot. However, OVMF hangs almost certainly during reboots from the UEFI
> > > >> shell.
> > > >>
> > > >> The race can be "reliably masked" by inserting a very small delay -- a
> > > >> single debug message -- at the top of 
> > > >> "VringEpollHandler::handle_event",
> > > >> i.e., just before the data plane processor checks the "enabled" field 
> > > >> of
> > > >> the vring. That delay suffices for the control plane processor to act 
> > > >> upon
> > > >> VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE.
> > > >>
> > > >> We can deterministically prevent the race in QEMU, by blocking OVMF 
> > > >> inside
> > > >> step (1.1) -- i.e., in the write to the "queue_enable" register -- 
> > > >> until
> > > >> VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE actually *completes*. That way OVMF's VCPU
> > > >> cannot advance to the FUSE_INIT submission before virtiofsd's control
> > > >> plane processor takes notice of the queue being enabled.
> > > >>
> > > >> Wait for VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE completion by:
> > > >>
> > > >> - setting the NEED_REPLY flag on VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE, and 
> > > >> waiting
> > > >>   for the reply, if the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK vhost-user 
> > > >> feature
> > > >>   has been negotiated, or
> > > >>
> > > >> - performing a separate VHOST_USER_GET_FEATURES *exchange*, which 
> > > >> requires
> > > >>   a backend response regardless of VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> (supporter:vhost)
> > > >> Cc: Eugenio Perez Martin <eperezma@redhat.com>
> > > >> Cc: German Maglione <gmaglione@redhat.com>
> > > >> Cc: Liu Jiang <gerry@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > >> Cc: Sergio Lopez Pascual <slp@redhat.com>
> > > >> Cc: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >>  hw/virtio/vhost-user.c | 2 +-
> > > >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
> > > >> index beb4b832245e..01e0ca90c538 100644
> > > >> --- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
> > > >> +++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
> > > >> @@ -1235,7 +1235,7 @@ static int vhost_user_set_vring_enable(struct 
> > > >> vhost_dev *dev, int enable)
> > > >>              .num   = enable,
> > > >>          };
> > > >>
> > > >> -        ret = vhost_set_vring(dev, VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE, 
> > > >> &state, false);
> > > >> +        ret = vhost_set_vring(dev, VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE, 
> > > >> &state, true);
> > > >>          if (ret < 0) {
> > > >>              /*
> > > >>               * Restoring the previous state is likely infeasible, as 
> > > >> well as
> > > >
> > >
>