[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] Bug in virtio_net_load
Michael S. Tsirkin
Re: [Qemu-devel] Bug in virtio_net_load
Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:23:08 +0300
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:34:51AM +0200, Robin Geuze wrote:
> I work for TransIP and we host a VPS platform based on QEMU/KVM. We are
> currently running qemu 2.4.0. A few days ago we noticed that live migrations
> for some of our VM's would fail. Further investigation turned out it was
> specific to windows server 2012, caused by the fact that the standard virtio
> driver from RedHat was replaced in windows updates by a driver called
> "Midfin eFabric" (this driver doesn't really seem to be meant for virtio, we
> have a case running at MicroSoft about that). Once we knew how to reproduce
> we tested this on QEMU 2.6.0 as well and it also seems to be affected
> (later we found out that 2.4.0 to 2.6.0 migration does work probably due to
> pure luck).
> We started investigating the problem in QEMU 2.4.0 and noticed it was caused
> by the fact that virtio_net_device_load requires certain feature flags to be
> set, specifically to load curr_guest_offloads which is only written and read
> if the VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_GUEST_OFFLOADS flag is set, but those flags are set
> in virtio_load after the call to virtio_net_device_load. Moving the code
> setting the feature flags before the call to virtio_net_device_load fixes
> it, however it introduces another problem. Virtio can have 64-bits feature
> flags, however the standard save payload for virtio only has space for
> 32-bits feature flags. This was solved by putting those in a subsection of
> the vmstate_save_state stuff. Unfortunately this is called (and thus binary
> offset located) after the virtio_net_device_load code.
> There was an attempt to fix this in QEMU 2.6.0. However, this seems to have
> broken it worse. The write code (virtio_net_save, virtio_save and
> virtio_net_save_device) still puts the curr_guest_offloads value before the
> vmstate_save_state data. However the read code expects and tries to read it
> after the vmstate_save_state data. Should we just also change the
> virtio_net_save code to have it follow the same order as virtio_net_load? Or
> will this potentially break more stuff.
> Robin Geuze
> TransIP BV
After going over it several times, I think the change in 2.6
Author: Jason Wang <address@hidden>
Date: Fri Sep 11 16:01:56 2015 +0800
virtio-net: unbreak self announcement and guest offloads after migration
After commit 019a3edbb25f1571e876f8af1ce4c55412939e5d ("virtio: make
features 64bit wide"). Device's guest_features was actually set after
vdc->load(). This breaks the assumption that device specific load()
function can check guest_features. For virtio-net, self announcement
and guest offloads won't work after migration.
Fixing this by defer them to virtio_net_load() where guest_features
were guaranteed to be set. Other virtio devices looks fine.
("virtio: make features 64bit wide")
Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <address@hidden>
Reviewed-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden>
Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>
I'm not sure what was I thinking when I applied this:
it changes load without changing save - how can this work?
I am inclined to revert 1f8828ef573c83365b4a87a776daf8bcef1caa21 and
apply this instead:
diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio.c b/hw/virtio/virtio.c
index 7ed06ea..18153d5 100644
@@ -1499,6 +1499,16 @@ int virtio_load(VirtIODevice *vdev, QEMUFile *f, int
+ * Temporarily set guest_features low bits - needed by
+ * virtio net load code testing for VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_GUEST_OFFLOADS
+ * VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_ANNOUNCE and VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VQ.
+ * Note: devices should always test host features in future - don't create
+ * new dependencies like this.
+ vdev->guest_features = features;
config_len = qemu_get_be32(f);
Could you please confirm whether this help?
Jason, Cornelia - any comments?
David, if this goes in I'm afraid your patchset reworking
save/load will have to be rebased, but I think we want
the bugfix first and new features/changes second.
Do you agree?