Re: [PATCH] rpmsg: virtio: Fix broken rpmsg_probe()

[Jason Wang]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 2:16 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 09:22:15AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 3:20 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 11:51:30AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > > + virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > + jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > + mst@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 at 10:20, Arnaud POULIQUEN
> > > > <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/29/22 19:43, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Anup,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 10:43:34PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> > > > > >> The rpmsg_probe() is broken at the moment because virtqueue_add_inbuf()
> > > > > >> fails due to both virtqueues (Rx and Tx) marked as broken by the
> > > > > >> __vring_new_virtqueue() function. To solve this, virtio_device_ready()
> > > > > >> (which unbreaks queues) should be called before virtqueue_add_inbuf().
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Fixes: 8b4ec69d7e09 ("virtio: harden vring IRQ")
> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >> ---
> > > > > >>  drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > > > > >> index 905ac7910c98..71a64d2c7644 100644
> > > > > >> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > > > > >> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > > > > >> @@ -929,6 +929,9 @@ static int rpmsg_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > >>      /* and half is dedicated for TX */
> > > > > >>      vrp->sbufs = bufs_va + total_buf_space / 2;
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> +    /* From this point on, we can notify and get callbacks. */
> > > > > >> +    virtio_device_ready(vdev);
> > > > > >> +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Calling virtio_device_ready() here means that virtqueue_get_buf_ctx_split() can
> > > > > > potentially be called (by way of rpmsg_recv_done()), which will race with
> > > > > > virtqueue_add_inbuf().  If buffers in the virtqueue aren't available then
> > > > > > rpmsg_recv_done() will fail, potentially breaking remote processors' state
> > > > > > machines that don't expect their initial name service to fail when the "device"
> > > > > > has been marked as ready.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What does make me curious though is that nobody on the remoteproc mailing list
> > > > > > has complained about commit 8b4ec69d7e09 breaking their environment... By now,
> > > > > > i.e rc4, that should have happened.  Anyone from TI, ST and Xilinx care to test this on
> > > > > > their rig?
> > > > >
> > > > > I tested on STm32mp1 board using tag v5.19-rc4(03c765b0e3b4)
> > > > > I confirm the issue!
> > > > >
> > > > > Concerning the solution, I share Mathieu's concern. This could break legacy.
> > > > > I made a short test and I would suggest to use __virtio_unbreak_device instead, tounbreak the virtqueues without changing the init sequence.
> > > > >
> > > > > I this case the patch would be:
> > > > >
> > > > > +       /*
> > > > > +        * Unbreak the virtqueues to allow to add buffers before setting the vdev status
> > > > > +        * to ready
> > > > > +        */
> > > > > +       __virtio_unbreak_device(vdev);
> > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > >         /* set up the receive buffers */
> > > > >         for (i = 0; i < vrp->num_bufs / 2; i++) {
> > > > >                 struct scatterlist sg;
> > > > >                 void *cpu_addr = vrp->rbufs + i * vrp->buf_size;
> > > >
> > > > This will indeed fix the problem.  On the flip side the kernel
> > > > documentation for __virtio_unbreak_device() puzzles me...
> > > > It clearly states that it should be used for probing and restoring but
> > > > _not_ directly by the driver.  Function rpmsg_probe() is part of
> > > > probing but also the entry point to a driver.
> > > >
> > > > Michael and virtualisation folks, is this the right way to move forward?
> > >
> > > I don't think it is, __virtio_unbreak_device is intended for core use.
> >
> > Can we fill the rx after virtio_device_ready() in this case?
> >
> > Btw, the driver set driver ok after registering, we probably get a svq
> > kick before DRIVER_OK?
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Is this an ack for the original patch?

Nope, I meant, instead of moving virtio_device_ready() a little bit
earlier, can we only move the rvq filling after virtio_device_ready().

Thanks

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Arnaud
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Mathieu
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>      /* set up the receive buffers */
> > > > > >>      for (i = 0; i < vrp->num_bufs / 2; i++) {
> > > > > >>              struct scatterlist sg;
> > > > > >> @@ -983,9 +986,6 @@ static int rpmsg_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > > >>       */
> > > > > >>      notify = virtqueue_kick_prepare(vrp->rvq);
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -    /* From this point on, we can notify and get callbacks. */
> > > > > >> -    virtio_device_ready(vdev);
> > > > > >> -
> > > > > >>      /* tell the remote processor it can start sending messages */
> > > > > >>      /*
> > > > > >>       * this might be concurrent with callbacks, but we are only
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> 2.34.1
> > > > > >>
> > >
>