diff mbox series

[v2] virtio/s390: implement virtio-ccw revision 2 correctly

Message ID 20210216110645.1087321-1-cohuck@redhat.com
State Accepted
Commit 182f709c5cff683e6732d04c78e328de0532284f
Headers show
Series [v2] virtio/s390: implement virtio-ccw revision 2 correctly | expand

Commit Message

Cornelia Huck Feb. 16, 2021, 11:06 a.m. UTC
CCW_CMD_READ_STATUS was introduced with revision 2 of virtio-ccw,
and drivers should only rely on it being implemented when they
negotiated at least that revision with the device.

However, virtio_ccw_get_status() issued READ_STATUS for any
device operating at least at revision 1. If the device accepts
READ_STATUS regardless of the negotiated revision (which some
implementations like QEMU do, even though the spec currently does
not allow it), everything works as intended. While a device
rejecting the command should also be handled gracefully, we will
not be able to see any changes the device makes to the status,
such as setting NEEDS_RESET or setting the status to zero after
a completed reset.

We negotiated the revision to at most 1, as we never bumped the
maximum revision; let's do that now and properly send READ_STATUS
only if we are operating at least at revision 2.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 7d3ce5ab9430 ("virtio/s390: support READ_STATUS command for virtio-ccw")
Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
---

v1->v2:
  tweak patch description and cc:stable

---
 drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Cornelia Huck Feb. 19, 2021, 4:38 p.m. UTC | #1
I was thinking of queuing this, but maybe it is quicker to pick it into
the s390 tree directly and save us the extra pull request dance?
Especially as this is a stable-worthy bugfix.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:06:45 +0100
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:

> CCW_CMD_READ_STATUS was introduced with revision 2 of virtio-ccw,

> and drivers should only rely on it being implemented when they

> negotiated at least that revision with the device.

> 

> However, virtio_ccw_get_status() issued READ_STATUS for any

> device operating at least at revision 1. If the device accepts

> READ_STATUS regardless of the negotiated revision (which some

> implementations like QEMU do, even though the spec currently does

> not allow it), everything works as intended. While a device

> rejecting the command should also be handled gracefully, we will

> not be able to see any changes the device makes to the status,

> such as setting NEEDS_RESET or setting the status to zero after

> a completed reset.

> 

> We negotiated the revision to at most 1, as we never bumped the

> maximum revision; let's do that now and properly send READ_STATUS

> only if we are operating at least at revision 2.

> 

> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org

> Fixes: 7d3ce5ab9430 ("virtio/s390: support READ_STATUS command for virtio-ccw")

> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>

> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>

> ---

> 

> v1->v2:

>   tweak patch description and cc:stable

> 

> ---

>  drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 4 ++--

>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

> 

> diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c

> index 5730572b52cd..54e686dca6de 100644

> --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c

> +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c

> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ struct virtio_rev_info {

>  };

>  

>  /* the highest virtio-ccw revision we support */

> -#define VIRTIO_CCW_REV_MAX 1

> +#define VIRTIO_CCW_REV_MAX 2

>  

>  struct virtio_ccw_vq_info {

>  	struct virtqueue *vq;

> @@ -952,7 +952,7 @@ static u8 virtio_ccw_get_status(struct virtio_device *vdev)

>  	u8 old_status = vcdev->dma_area->status;

>  	struct ccw1 *ccw;

>  

> -	if (vcdev->revision < 1)

> +	if (vcdev->revision < 2)

>  		return vcdev->dma_area->status;

>  

>  	ccw = ccw_device_dma_zalloc(vcdev->cdev, sizeof(*ccw));
Vasily Gorbik Feb. 19, 2021, 7 p.m. UTC | #2
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 05:38:28PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> I was thinking of queuing this, but maybe it is quicker to pick it into

> the s390 tree directly and save us the extra pull request dance?

> Especially as this is a stable-worthy bugfix.


Yes, sure. I'll pick it up. Thanks.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
index 5730572b52cd..54e686dca6de 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@  struct virtio_rev_info {
 };
 
 /* the highest virtio-ccw revision we support */
-#define VIRTIO_CCW_REV_MAX 1
+#define VIRTIO_CCW_REV_MAX 2
 
 struct virtio_ccw_vq_info {
 	struct virtqueue *vq;
@@ -952,7 +952,7 @@  static u8 virtio_ccw_get_status(struct virtio_device *vdev)
 	u8 old_status = vcdev->dma_area->status;
 	struct ccw1 *ccw;
 
-	if (vcdev->revision < 1)
+	if (vcdev->revision < 2)
 		return vcdev->dma_area->status;
 
 	ccw = ccw_device_dma_zalloc(vcdev->cdev, sizeof(*ccw));