From: Jens Freimann <jfreiman@redhat.com>
End processing of messages when VHOST_USER_NONE
is received.
Without this we run into a vubr_panic() call and get
"PANIC: Unhandled request: 0"
Signed-off-by: Jens Freimann <jfreiman@redhat.com>
---
contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
index 9efb9dac0e..35fa0c5e56 100644
--- a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
+++ b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ vu_message_read(VuDev *dev, int conn_fd, VhostUserMsg *vmsg)
rc = recvmsg(conn_fd, &msg, 0);
} while (rc < 0 && (errno == EINTR || errno == EAGAIN));
- if (rc <= 0) {
+ if (rc < 0) {
vu_panic(dev, "Error while recvmsg: %s", strerror(errno));
return false;
}
@@ -806,6 +806,8 @@ vu_process_message(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg *vmsg)
return vu_get_queue_num_exec(dev, vmsg);
case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE:
return vu_set_vring_enable_exec(dev, vmsg);
+ case VHOST_USER_NONE:
+ break;
default:
vmsg_close_fds(vmsg);
vu_panic(dev, "Unhandled request: %d", vmsg->request);
--
2.13.3
Hi
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:52 PM Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jens Freimann <jfreiman@redhat.com>
>
> End processing of messages when VHOST_USER_NONE
> is received.
>
> Without this we run into a vubr_panic() call and get
> "PANIC: Unhandled request: 0"
>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Freimann <jfreiman@redhat.com>
> ---
> contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
> index 9efb9dac0e..35fa0c5e56 100644
> --- a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
> +++ b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ vu_message_read(VuDev *dev, int conn_fd, VhostUserMsg *vmsg)
> rc = recvmsg(conn_fd, &msg, 0);
> } while (rc < 0 && (errno == EINTR || errno == EAGAIN));
>
> - if (rc <= 0) {
> + if (rc < 0) {
> vu_panic(dev, "Error while recvmsg: %s", strerror(errno));
> return false;
> }
> @@ -806,6 +806,8 @@ vu_process_message(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg *vmsg)
> return vu_get_queue_num_exec(dev, vmsg);
> case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE:
> return vu_set_vring_enable_exec(dev, vmsg);
> + case VHOST_USER_NONE:
> + break;
I am afraid this isn't working. vu_message_read() returns
true/success, vu_process_message() returns false/no-reply, so
vu_dispatch() will return success, and the caller has no clear way to
know that the socket got disconnected. For me the vu_panic() was quite
more appropriate here.
What problem did this patch exactly solve?
>
> default:
> vmsg_close_fds(vmsg);
> vu_panic(dev, "Unhandled request: %d", vmsg->request);
> --
> 2.13.3
>
>
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 04:46:24PM +0000, Marc-Andr?? Lureau wrote:
>Hi
>
>On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:52 PM Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Jens Freimann <jfreiman@redhat.com>
>>
>> End processing of messages when VHOST_USER_NONE
>> is received.
>>
>> Without this we run into a vubr_panic() call and get
>> "PANIC: Unhandled request: 0"
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Freimann <jfreiman@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
>> index 9efb9dac0e..35fa0c5e56 100644
>> --- a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
>> +++ b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
>> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ vu_message_read(VuDev *dev, int conn_fd, VhostUserMsg *vmsg)
>> rc = recvmsg(conn_fd, &msg, 0);
>> } while (rc < 0 && (errno == EINTR || errno == EAGAIN));
>>
>> - if (rc <= 0) {
>> + if (rc < 0) {
>> vu_panic(dev, "Error while recvmsg: %s", strerror(errno));
>> return false;
>> }
>> @@ -806,6 +806,8 @@ vu_process_message(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg *vmsg)
>> return vu_get_queue_num_exec(dev, vmsg);
>> case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE:
>> return vu_set_vring_enable_exec(dev, vmsg);
>> + case VHOST_USER_NONE:
>> + break;
>
>
>I am afraid this isn't working. vu_message_read() returns
>true/success, vu_process_message() returns false/no-reply, so
>vu_dispatch() will return success, and the caller has no clear way to
>know that the socket got disconnected. For me the vu_panic() was quite
>more appropriate here.
>
>What problem did this patch exactly solve?
The problem was that a VhostUserMsg of size 0 is considered an
error. But recvmsg() can return 0. When I ran my pxe
testcase using vhost-user-bridge I ran into vu_panic() because of this.
This worked because VHOST_USER_NONE is defined as 0. Instead of
doing this we could just allow a vmsg size of zero and not tread it
as an error?
regards,
Jens
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 04:46:24PM +0000, Marc-Andr?? Lureau wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:52 PM Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Jens Freimann <jfreiman@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> End processing of messages when VHOST_USER_NONE
>>> is received.
>>>
>>> Without this we run into a vubr_panic() call and get
>>> "PANIC: Unhandled request: 0"
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Freimann <jfreiman@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c | 4 +++-
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
>>> b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
>>> index 9efb9dac0e..35fa0c5e56 100644
>>> --- a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
>>> +++ b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
>>> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ vu_message_read(VuDev *dev, int conn_fd, VhostUserMsg
>>> *vmsg)
>>> rc = recvmsg(conn_fd, &msg, 0);
>>> } while (rc < 0 && (errno == EINTR || errno == EAGAIN));
>>>
>>> - if (rc <= 0) {
>>> + if (rc < 0) {
>>> vu_panic(dev, "Error while recvmsg: %s", strerror(errno));
>>> return false;
>>> }
>>> @@ -806,6 +806,8 @@ vu_process_message(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg *vmsg)
>>> return vu_get_queue_num_exec(dev, vmsg);
>>> case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE:
>>> return vu_set_vring_enable_exec(dev, vmsg);
>>> + case VHOST_USER_NONE:
>>> + break;
>>
>>
>>
>> I am afraid this isn't working. vu_message_read() returns
>> true/success, vu_process_message() returns false/no-reply, so
>> vu_dispatch() will return success, and the caller has no clear way to
>> know that the socket got disconnected. For me the vu_panic() was quite
>> more appropriate here.
>>
>> What problem did this patch exactly solve?
>
>
> The problem was that a VhostUserMsg of size 0 is considered an
> error. But recvmsg() can return 0. When I ran my pxe
When did recvmsg() return 0? It should only be called after a poll
IN/ERR, in case of data it should always return != 0, and if
disconnected, it returns 0.
> testcase using vhost-user-bridge I ran into vu_panic() because of this.
> This worked because VHOST_USER_NONE is defined as 0. Instead of
> doing this we could just allow a vmsg size of zero and not tread it
> as an error?
We want to treat disconnect as a panic condition imho, that the
library user is free to implement in different way (abort() clean
exit, reconnect etc).
Please explain your use case and how you ran into recvmsg() = 0 and
what you expect to happen at this point.
--
Marc-André Lureau
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 04:14:33PM +0000, Marc-Andr?? Lureau wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 04:46:24PM +0000, Marc-Andr?? Lureau wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:52 PM Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Jens Freimann <jfreiman@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> End processing of messages when VHOST_USER_NONE
>>>> is received.
>>>>
>>>> Without this we run into a vubr_panic() call and get
>>>> "PANIC: Unhandled request: 0"
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Freimann <jfreiman@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c | 4 +++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
>>>> b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
>>>> index 9efb9dac0e..35fa0c5e56 100644
>>>> --- a/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
>>>> +++ b/contrib/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c
>>>> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ vu_message_read(VuDev *dev, int conn_fd, VhostUserMsg
>>>> *vmsg)
>>>> rc = recvmsg(conn_fd, &msg, 0);
>>>> } while (rc < 0 && (errno == EINTR || errno == EAGAIN));
>>>>
>>>> - if (rc <= 0) {
>>>> + if (rc < 0) {
>>>> vu_panic(dev, "Error while recvmsg: %s", strerror(errno));
>>>> return false;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -806,6 +806,8 @@ vu_process_message(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg *vmsg)
>>>> return vu_get_queue_num_exec(dev, vmsg);
>>>> case VHOST_USER_SET_VRING_ENABLE:
>>>> return vu_set_vring_enable_exec(dev, vmsg);
>>>> + case VHOST_USER_NONE:
>>>> + break;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am afraid this isn't working. vu_message_read() returns
>>> true/success, vu_process_message() returns false/no-reply, so
>>> vu_dispatch() will return success, and the caller has no clear way to
>>> know that the socket got disconnected. For me the vu_panic() was quite
>>> more appropriate here.
>>>
>>> What problem did this patch exactly solve?
>>
>>
>> The problem was that a VhostUserMsg of size 0 is considered an
>> error. But recvmsg() can return 0. When I ran my pxe
>
>When did recvmsg() return 0? It should only be called after a poll
>IN/ERR, in case of data it should always return != 0, and if
>disconnected, it returns 0.
My usecase is that my testcase starts a pxeboot data transfer that
goes through vhost-user-bridge. When the transfer is done the socket
is disconnected and recvmsg() returns 0. I want vhost-user-bridge to
end gracefully, without spitting out an error message. Is that
reasonable?
>
>> testcase using vhost-user-bridge I ran into vu_panic() because of this.
>> This worked because VHOST_USER_NONE is defined as 0. Instead of
>> doing this we could just allow a vmsg size of zero and not tread it
>> as an error?
>
>We want to treat disconnect as a panic condition imho, that the
>library user is free to implement in different way (abort() clean
>exit, reconnect etc).
Ok, that wasn't obvious to me. Thanks for clarifying!
So I was "fixing" the wrong part. On a disconnect vubr_panic() in
vhost-user-bridge.c is called and is supposed to do the right thing.
Currently it will print an error message "PANIC: Unhandled request:
0" in my use case. I could ignore that or check for exactly this
string and suppress the error message. Both seems a bit ugly to me...
>
>Please explain your use case and how you ran into recvmsg() = 0 and
>what you expect to happen at this point.
Hope this helps! Looks like we can revert this patch. I'll send a
patch to do this.
regards,
Jens
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 01:31:37PM +0000, Jens Freimann wrote: >On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 04:14:33PM +0000, Marc-Andr?? Lureau wrote: >>On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com> wrote: >>>On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 04:46:24PM +0000, Marc-Andr?? Lureau wrote: >>>>On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:52 PM Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com> >>>>wrote: >>We want to treat disconnect as a panic condition imho, that the >>library user is free to implement in different way (abort() clean >>exit, reconnect etc). > >Ok, that wasn't obvious to me. Thanks for clarifying! So I was >"fixing" the wrong part. On a disconnect vubr_panic() in >vhost-user-bridge.c is called and is supposed to do the right thing. > >Currently it will print an error message "PANIC: Unhandled request: Actually it is "Error while recvmsg" because in vu_message_read() vu_panic is called if rc from recvmsg is <= 0. Followed by "Error while dispatching" printed by vhost-user-bridge. regards, Jens
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.