From nobody Mon Feb 9 09:16:25 2026 Delivered-To: importer@patchew.org Authentication-Results: mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass; spf=pass (zohomail.com: domain of gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+importer=patchew.org@nongnu.org; dmarc=pass(p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1656337847468469.23101396555523; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 06:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]:41314 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o5p8Y-0003Ng-CY for importer@patchew.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:50:46 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46588) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o5p3L-0003Zo-Jo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:45:33 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:56034) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o5p3I-0004Gg-I7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:45:23 -0400 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-56-76dScAmIOCOZ248vrLQbVw-1; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:45:10 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B32462803020; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:45:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merkur.fritz.box (unknown [10.39.194.183]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DEF18EAC; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:45:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1656337511; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=uwzEscNtBC5gZJjV2nWFleOOxr6xG8ffHaBS2h+13i4=; b=T/q6PTjZCFk6bRDC1WGbiCARE2XzPBXPtlhVaQEVvbcz8bVSxcrcB24rQ0nfZCnGSHyb4W KrZ8zPEB66YeBiGzE87pHLrV8gzF5UcohYifLFkp8GEpoQTd0DfetzO7faqh9ZBBvEqJim rKHLelW8k8YA3eZ1amu7J76aeLPLpEg= X-MC-Unique: 76dScAmIOCOZ248vrLQbVw-1 From: Kevin Wolf To: qemu-block@nongnu.org Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, raphael.norwitz@nutanix.com, stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Subject: [PATCH 2/3] libvhost-user: Fix VHOST_USER_GET_MAX_MEM_SLOTS reply Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:44:59 +0200 Message-Id: <20220627134500.94842-3-kwolf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20220627134500.94842-1-kwolf@redhat.com> References: <20220627134500.94842-1-kwolf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.11.54.5 Received-SPF: pass (zohomail.com: domain of gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.51.188.17; envelope-from=qemu-devel-bounces+importer=patchew.org@nongnu.org; helo=lists.gnu.org; Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=kwolf@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.082, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+importer=patchew.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" X-ZohoMail-DKIM: pass (identity @redhat.com) X-ZM-MESSAGEID: 1656337849459100001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" With REPLY_NEEDED, libvhost-user sends both the acutal result and an additional ACK reply for VHOST_USER_GET_MAX_MEM_SLOTS. This is incorrect, the spec mandates that it behave the same with and without REPLY_NEEDED because it always sends a reply. Fixes: 6fb2e173d20c9bbb5466183d33a3ad7dcd0375fa Signed-off-by: Kevin Wolf --- subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c | 11 ++--------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c b/subprojects/libvho= st-user/libvhost-user.c index b4cc3c2d68..cfa1bcc334 100644 --- a/subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c +++ b/subprojects/libvhost-user/libvhost-user.c @@ -1827,18 +1827,11 @@ vu_handle_vring_kick(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg *vmsg) =20 static bool vu_handle_get_max_memslots(VuDev *dev, VhostUserMsg *vmsg) { - vmsg->flags =3D VHOST_USER_REPLY_MASK | VHOST_USER_VERSION; - vmsg->size =3D sizeof(vmsg->payload.u64); - vmsg->payload.u64 =3D VHOST_USER_MAX_RAM_SLOTS; - vmsg->fd_num =3D 0; - - if (!vu_message_write(dev, dev->sock, vmsg)) { - vu_panic(dev, "Failed to send max ram slots: %s\n", strerror(errno= )); - } + vmsg_set_reply_u64(vmsg, VHOST_USER_MAX_RAM_SLOTS); =20 DPRINT("u64: 0x%016"PRIx64"\n", (uint64_t) VHOST_USER_MAX_RAM_SLOTS); =20 - return false; + return true; } =20 static bool --=20 2.35.3