Re: [PATCH] used ring: define the meaning and requirements of the len field.

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:48:55AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> We said what it was for, and noted why.  We didn't place any requirements
> on it, nor clearly spell out the implications of its use.
> 
> This clarification comes particularly from noticing that QEMU didn't
> set len correctly, and philosophising over the correct value when
> an error has occurred.
> 
> (Wording precision feedback from Michael and Cornelia - Thanks!)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

Regarding 1.0 versus 1.1: do you think this is a non-material change?
If we do material changes, we need a public review period,
and I feel reviewer's time is better spent reviewing 1.1.


> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> index 6ba079d..2ff8c65 100644
> --- a/content.tex
> +++ b/content.tex
> @@ -600,10 +600,19 @@ them: it is only written to by the device, and read by the driver.
>  Each entry in the ring is a pair: \field{id} indicates the head entry of the
>  descriptor chain describing the buffer (this matches an entry
>  placed in the available ring by the guest earlier), and \field{len} the total
> -of bytes written into the buffer. The latter is extremely useful
> -for drivers using untrusted buffers: if you do not know exactly
> -how much has been written by the device, you usually have to zero
> -the buffer to ensure no data leakage occurs.
> +of bytes written into the buffer. 
> +
> +\begin{note}
> +\field{len} is useful

I would add "in particular" here. It's also useful for many other drivers.

> +for drivers using untrusted buffers: if a driver does not know exactly
> +how much has been written by the device, the driver would have to zero
> +the buffer in advance to ensure no data leakage occurs.
> +
> +For example, a network driver may hand a received buffer directly to
> +an unprivileged userspace application.  If the network device has not
> +overwritten the bytes which were in that buffer, this could leak the
> +contents of freed memory from other processes to the application.
> +\end{note}
>  
>  \begin{note}
>  The legacy \hyperref[intro:Virtio PCI Draft]{[Virtio PCI Draft]}
> @@ -612,6 +621,28 @@ the constant as VRING_USED_F_NO_NOTIFY, but the layout and value were
>  identical.
>  \end{note}
>  
> +\devicenormative{\subsubsection}{Virtqueue Notification Suppression}{Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Virtqueues / The Virtqueue Used Ring}

Notification Suppression? 

> +
> +The device MUST set \field{len} prior to updating the used \field{idx}.
> +
> +The device MUST write at least \field{len} bytes to descriptor,
> +beginning at the first device-writable buffer,
> +prior to updating the used \field{idx}.
> +
> +The device MAY write more than \field{len} bytes to descriptor.
> +
> +\begin{note}
> +There are potential error cases where a device might not know what
> +parts of the buffers have been written.  This is why \field{len} is
> +permitted to be an underestimate: that's preferable to the driver believing
> +that uninitialized memory has been overwritten when it has not.
> +\end{note}
> +
> +\drivernormative{\subsubsection}{Virtqueue Notification Suppression}{Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Virtqueues / The Virtqueue Used Ring}


Same here.

> +
> +The driver MUST NOT make assumptions about data in device-writable buffers
> +beyond the first \field{len} bytes, and SHOULD ignore this data.
> +
>  \subsection{Virtqueue Notification Suppression}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Virtqueues / Virtqueue Notification Suppression}
>  
>  The device can suppress notifications in a manner analogous to the way