Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH v3] content: enhance device requirements for feature bits

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

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 02:10:11PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/11/2018 09:56 AM, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
> > Fixes: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/14
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - Refine the wording (Cornelia);
> > 
> > v3:
> > - Refine the wording (MST);
> > 
> >   content.tex | 7 +++++++
> >   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> > index f996fad..3c7d67d 100644
> > --- a/content.tex
> > +++ b/content.tex
> > @@ -125,6 +125,13 @@ which was not offered.  The device SHOULD accept any valid subset
> >   of features the driver accepts, otherwise it MUST fail to set the
> >   FEATURES_OK \field{device status} bit when the driver writes it.
> > +If a device has successfully negotiated a set of features
> > +at least once (by accepting the FEATURES_OK \field{device
> > +status} bit during device initialization), then it SHOULD
> > +NOT fail re-negotiation of the same set of features after
> > +a device or system reset.  Failure to do so would interfere
> > +with resuming from suspend and error recovery.
> > +
> 
> 
> Sorry people but I don't get it. I mean it is kind of reasonable
> to assume that with a given device and a given driver (given, i.e.
> nothing changes) the two will always negotiate the same features
> (including the extremal case where the negotiation fails).
> 
> Either the device or a driver rolling a dice to make feature negotiation
> more fun seems quite unreasonable. So I assume this is not what we are
> bothering to soft prohibit here.
> 
> So the interesting scenario seems to be when stuff changes. When
> migrating the implementation of the device could change. Or something
> changes regarding the resources used to provide the virtual device.
> 
> But then, if the device really can not support the set of features
> it used to be able, I guess the SHOULD does not take effect (I guess
> that is the difference compared to MUST).
> 
> Bottom line is: I tried to figure out what is this about, but I failed.
> I've read https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec/issues/14 too but
> it did not click. I would appreciate some assistance.

It's exactly what it says. Let's say you negotiated a feature and then
device sets NEED_RESET.  Driver must now reset the device and put it
back in the same state it had before the reset, then resubmit
requests that were available but never used.

What if any of the features changed? Device suddenly
needs to check for requests which do not match the
features.

Suspend is similar: guests tend to assume hardware
does not change across suspend/resume, any changes
tend to make resume fail.

> 
> >   \subsection{Legacy Interface: A Note on Feature
> >   Bits}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature
> >   Bits / Legacy Interface: A Note on Feature Bits}
> >