Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V3 2/3] virtio-blk: fail get_features when both scsi and 1.0 were set

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 06:11:16PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:53:47 +0300
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:55:22PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:44:14 +0300
> > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:38:40PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:32:17 +0300
> > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:25:31PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:21:32 +0300
> > > > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:58:43AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:59:51 +0800
> > > > > > > > > Jason Wang <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > SCSI passthrough was no longer supported in virtio 1.0, so 
> > > > > > > > > > this patch
> > > > > > > > > > fail the get_features() when both 1.0 and scsi is set. And 
> > > > > > > > > > also only
> > > > > > > > > > advertise VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI for legacy virtio-blk device.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <address@hidden>
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > >  hw/block/virtio-blk.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > > > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/block/virtio-blk.c b/hw/block/virtio-blk.c
> > > > > > > > > > index 4c27974..4716c3e 100644
> > > > > > > > > > --- a/hw/block/virtio-blk.c
> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/hw/block/virtio-blk.c
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -731,7 +731,14 @@ static uint64_t 
> > > > > > > > > > virtio_blk_get_features(VirtIODevice *vdev, uint64_t 
> > > > > > > > > > features,
> > > > > > > > > >      virtio_add_feature(&features, VIRTIO_BLK_F_GEOMETRY);
> > > > > > > > > >      virtio_add_feature(&features, VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLOGY);
> > > > > > > > > >      virtio_add_feature(&features, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE);
> > > > > > > > > > -    virtio_add_feature(&features, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI);
> > > > > > > > > > +    if (__virtio_has_feature(features, 
> > > > > > > > > > VIRTIO_F_VERSION_1)) {
> > > > > > > > > > +        if (s->conf.scsi) {
> > > > > > > > > > +            error_setg(errp, "Virtio 1.0 does not support 
> > > > > > > > > > scsi passthrough!");
> > > > > > > > > > +            return 0;
> > > > > > > > > > +        }
> > > > > > > > > > +    } else {
> > > > > > > > > > +        virtio_add_feature(&features, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SCSI);
> > > > > > > > > > +    }
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >      if (s->conf.config_wce) {
> > > > > > > > > >          virtio_add_feature(&features, 
> > > > > > > > > > VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE);
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Do we advertise F_SCSI even if scsi is not configured in 
> > > > > > > > > order to keep
> > > > > > > > > the same bits as before? I'm afraid I don't remember, that 
> > > > > > > > > thread was
> > > > > > > > > long :/
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I'm asking because I'd like to depend on that bit to decide 
> > > > > > > > > whether I
> > > > > > > > > can negotiate revision 1 for ccw and subsequently offer 
> > > > > > > > > VERSION_1. It
> > > > > > > > > would be an easy thing to do, and I'd like to avoid mucking 
> > > > > > > > > around with
> > > > > > > > > device-specific configuration from the transport.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > To illustrate what I'm talking about, my current patchset for 
> > > > > > > > > virtio-1
> > > > > > > > > on ccw is here:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > git://github.com/cohuck/qemu virtio-1-ccw-2.5
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I still think you are over-engineering it.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Just add a property to disable the modern interface.
> > > > > > > > Anyone using scsi passthrough will have to set that,
> > > > > > > > if not - above patch will make initialization fail.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > And I still think requiring user action and not having this work
> > > > > > > transparently is a bad idea...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Having what work transparently? SCSI passthrough?
> > > > > > Look, either you agree with Paolo or not.
> > > > > > Paolo thinks it's a deprecated hack not really worth supporting 
> > > > > > long term.
> > > > > > If you agree, I don't see why is asking for an extra property
> > > > > > such a bit deal. If you don't agree - please open a new thread
> > > > > > and argue about that.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I sometimes wonder whether we're arguing about the same thing :(
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dropping scsi for virtio-1 is fine. Dropping backwards-compatibility 
> > > > > is
> > > > > not. If I upgrade the host, I want the guests to be able to continue
> > > > > using scsi without needing to fence virtio-1 off manually.
> > > > 
> > > > Paolo's argument is that no one should be using scsi passthrough.
> > > > 
> > > > If the feature has users, we should bring it back into virtio 1.
> > > > 
> > > > If almost one uses it, then no one will suffer too much from getting
> > > > an error message saying "please set disable-modern=on".
> > > 
> > > And here's where we disagree. Even if it's exotic, I don't want to
> > > break existing users.
> > 
> > You should take this disagreement to the virtio TC.  QEMU merely
> > implements what the spec voted by TC says.
> 
> I fail to see why this is a spec issue. It sounds like a qemu
> implementation question to me.

Pls re-read the discussion around removing this issue then.


virtio 1 should be a super-set of virtio functionality-wise.


Paolo said this specific feature has been deprecated for years, no
one should be using it, so we dropped it from spec.


> > 
> > > > And there's no reason to make it behave differently
> > > > between ccw and pci.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Moreover, I will need a revision-fencing mechanism in any case, 
> > > > > > > when we
> > > > > > > introduce further revisions.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why? Assuming we drop more features in the future?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Revisions != features. Think new or changed channel commands, for
> > > > > example.
> > > > 
> > > > You likely can just add these unconditionally.
> > > 
> > > Backwards compatibility?
> > 
> > Compatibility is built-in to revision negotiation, isn't it?
> 
> Yes, but we still want to support migration to older releases.

I don't think you can do anything in virtio to make this work
for PPC.  As long as you don't version machine types, cross version
migration will be broken.



> > 
> > > > How is this related to virtio blk at all?
> > > 
> > > It isn't, revision handling is generic. It's just the scsi bit that
> > > triggered it.
> >