[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio] [PATCH v10 01/10] virtio: document forward compatibility guarantees
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 01:53:50PM +0000, David Edmondson wrote: >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > Feature negotiation forms the basis of forward compatibility >> > guarantees of virtio but has never been properly documented. >> > Do it now. >> > >> > Suggested-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> >> > --- >> > content.tex | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) >> > >> > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex >> > index 0e474dd..0c2d917 100644 >> > --- a/content.tex >> > +++ b/content.tex >> > @@ -114,21 +114,63 @@ \section{Feature Bits}\label{sec:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature B >> > In particular, new fields in the device configuration space are >> > indicated by offering a new feature bit. >> > >> > +To keep the feature negotiation mechanism extensible, it is important >> > +that devices \em{do not} offer any feature bits that they would not be >> > +able to handle if the driver accepted them (even though drivers are not >> > +supposed to accept them in the first place even if offered, according to >> > +this version of the specification.) >> >> I find this (the bit in parenthesis) confusing. >> >> Why are drivers not supposed to accept features that they have been >> offered, given that they can't know that the device cannot handle the >> feature that it just offered? >> >> Is this alluding to the later section: >> >> > feature bits not described in this specification, reserved feature >> > bits and feature bits reserved or not supported for the specific >> > transport or the specific device type >> >> ? > > exactly. how would you put this better? given an example? Perhaps it would be enough to say: > (even though drivers are not supposed to accept unrecognised features in > the first place even if offered, according to the specification) "Unrecognised" is intended as a shorthand for the whole "not described, reserved, ...". Maybe "unrecognised or reserved"? >> > Likewise, it is important that >> > +drivers \em{do not} accept feature bits they do not know how to handle >> > +(even though devices are not supposed to offer them in the first place, >> > +according to this version of the specification.) The preferred way for >> > +handling reserved and unexpected features is that the driver ignores >> > +them. >> > + >> > +In particular, this is >> > +especially important for features limited to specific transports, >> > +as enabling these for more transports in future versions of the >> > +specification is highly likely to require changing the behaviour >> > +from drivers and devices. >> >> "require changed behaviour from drivers and devices". >> >> > Drivers and devices supporting >> > +multiple transports need to carefully maintain per-transport >> > +lists of allowed features. >> > + >> > \drivernormative{\subsection}{Feature Bits}{Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature Bits} >> > The driver MUST NOT accept a feature which the device did not offer, >> > and MUST NOT accept a feature which requires another feature which was >> > not accepted. >> > >> > +The driver MUST validate the feature bits offered by the device. >> > +The driver MUST ignore and MUST NOT accept any feature bit that is >> > +\begin{itemize} >> > +\item not described in this specification, >> > +\item marked as reserved, >> > +\item not supported for the specific transport, >> > +\item not defined for the device type. >> > +\end{itemize} >> > + >> > The driver SHOULD go into backwards compatibility mode >> > if the device does not offer a feature it understands, otherwise MUST >> > set the FAILED \field{device status} bit and cease initialization. >> > >> > +By contrast, the driver MUST NOT fail solely because a feature >> > +it does not understand has been offered by the device. >> > + >> > \devicenormative{\subsection}{Feature Bits}{Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature Bits} >> > The device MUST NOT offer a feature which requires another feature >> > 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. >> > >> > +The device MUST NOT offer feature bits corresponding to features >> > +it would not support if accepted by the driver (even if the >> > +driver is prohibited from accepting the feature bits by the >> > +specification); for the sake of clarity, this refers to feature >> > +bits not described in this specification, reserved feature bits >> > +and feature bits reserved or not supported for the specific >> > +transport or the specific device type, but this does not preclude >> > +devices written to a future version of this specification from >> > +offering such feature bits should such a specification have a >> > +provision for devices to support the corresponding features. >> > + >> > 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 >> > -- >> > MST >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- He caught a fleeting glimpse of a man, moving uphill pursued by a bus.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]