1. Patchew
  2. QEMU
  3. View series

[PATCH V3] virtio/vhost-user: fix qemu abort when hotunplug vhost-user-net device

yaozhenguo posted 1 patch 1 year, 3 months ago
Failed in applying to current master (apply log)
There is a newer version of this series
hw/virtio/vhost-user.c         | 43 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h |  1 +
2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
[PATCH V3] virtio/vhost-user: fix qemu abort when hotunplug vhost-user-net device
Posted by yaozhenguo 1 year, 3 months ago 
During the hot-unplugging of vhost-user-net type network cards,
the vhost_user_cleanup function may add the same rcu node to
the rcu linked list.
The function call relationship in this case is as follows:

vhost_user_cleanup
    ->vhost_user_host_notifier_remove
        ->call_rcu(n, vhost_user_host_notifier_free, rcu);
    ->g_free_rcu(n, rcu);

When this happens, QEMU will abort in try_dequeue:

if (head == &dummy && qatomic_mb_read(&tail) == &dummy.next) {
    abort();
}

backtrace is as follows::
0  __pthread_kill_implementation () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
1  raise () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
2  abort () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
3  try_dequeue () at ../util/rcu.c:235
4  call_rcu_thread (0) at ../util/rcu.c:288
5  qemu_thread_start (0) at ../util/qemu-thread-posix.c:541
6  start_thread () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
7  clone3 () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6

The reason for the abort is that adding two identical nodes to
the rcu linked list will cause the rcu linked list to become a ring,
but when the dummy node is added after the two identical nodes,
the ring is opened. But only one node is added to list with
rcu_call_count added twice. This will cause rcu try_dequeue abort.

This happens when n->addr != 0. In some scenarios, this does happen.
For example, this situation will occur when using a 32-queue DPU
vhost-user-net type network card for hot-unplug testing, because
VhostUserHostNotifier->addr will be cleared during the processing of
VHOST_USER_BACKEND_VRING_HOST_NOTIFIER_MSG. However,it is asynchronous,
so we cannot guarantee that VhostUserHostNotifier->addr is zero in
vhost_user_cleanup. Therefore, it is necessary to merge g_free_rcu
and vhost_user_host_notifier_free into one rcu node.

Fixes: 503e355465 ("virtio/vhost-user: dynamically assign VhostUserHostNotifiers")
Signed-off-by: yaozhenguo <yaozhenguo@jd.com>
---
   V1->V2: add n->addr check in vhost_user_get_vring_base and vhost_user_backend_handle_vring_host_notifier to prevent submit same node to rcu list.
   V2->V3: 1. change "free" to "destroy"
           2. move "!n->addr && !destroy" checking to vhost_user_host_notifier_remove
           3. move "!n" checking to vhost_user_host_notifier_remove
---
 hw/virtio/vhost-user.c         | 43 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
 include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h |  1 +
 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
index 00561daa06..f80d0af76f 100644
--- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
+++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
@@ -1185,9 +1185,16 @@ static int vhost_user_set_vring_num(struct vhost_dev *dev,
 
 static void vhost_user_host_notifier_free(VhostUserHostNotifier *n)
 {
-    assert(n && n->unmap_addr);
-    munmap(n->unmap_addr, qemu_real_host_page_size());
-    n->unmap_addr = NULL;
+    if (n->unmap_addr) {
+        munmap(n->unmap_addr, qemu_real_host_page_size());
+        n->unmap_addr = NULL;
+    }
+    if (n->destroy) {
+        memory_region_transaction_begin();
+        object_unparent(OBJECT(&n->mr));
+        memory_region_transaction_commit();
+        g_free(n);
+    }
 }
 
 /*
@@ -1195,17 +1202,25 @@ static void vhost_user_host_notifier_free(VhostUserHostNotifier *n)
  * under rcu.
  */
 static void vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(VhostUserHostNotifier *n,
-                                            VirtIODevice *vdev)
+                                            VirtIODevice *vdev, bool destroy)
 {
+    if (!n)
+        return;
+    if (!destroy && !n->addr)
+        return;
+
     if (n->addr) {
         if (vdev) {
+            memory_region_transaction_begin();
             virtio_queue_set_host_notifier_mr(vdev, n->idx, &n->mr, false);
+            memory_region_transaction_commit();
         }
         assert(!n->unmap_addr);
         n->unmap_addr = n->addr;
         n->addr = NULL;
-        call_rcu(n, vhost_user_host_notifier_free, rcu);
     }
+    n->destroy = destroy;
+    call_rcu(n, vhost_user_host_notifier_free, rcu);
 }
 
 static int vhost_user_set_vring_base(struct vhost_dev *dev,
@@ -1279,9 +1294,7 @@ static int vhost_user_get_vring_base(struct vhost_dev *dev,
     struct vhost_user *u = dev->opaque;
 
     VhostUserHostNotifier *n = fetch_notifier(u->user, ring->index);
-    if (n) {
-        vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, dev->vdev);
-    }
+    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, dev->vdev, false);
 
     ret = vhost_user_write(dev, &msg, NULL, 0);
     if (ret < 0) {
@@ -1562,7 +1575,7 @@ static int vhost_user_backend_handle_vring_host_notifier(struct vhost_dev *dev,
      * new mapped address.
      */
     n = fetch_or_create_notifier(user, queue_idx);
-    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, vdev);
+    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, vdev, false);
 
     if (area->u64 & VHOST_USER_VRING_NOFD_MASK) {
         return 0;
@@ -2736,15 +2749,7 @@ static int vhost_user_set_inflight_fd(struct vhost_dev *dev,
 static void vhost_user_state_destroy(gpointer data)
 {
     VhostUserHostNotifier *n = (VhostUserHostNotifier *) data;
-    if (n) {
-        vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, NULL);
-        object_unparent(OBJECT(&n->mr));
-        /*
-         * We can't free until vhost_user_host_notifier_remove has
-         * done it's thing so schedule the free with RCU.
-         */
-        g_free_rcu(n, rcu);
-    }
+    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, NULL, true);
 }
 
 bool vhost_user_init(VhostUserState *user, CharBackend *chr, Error **errp)
@@ -2765,9 +2770,7 @@ void vhost_user_cleanup(VhostUserState *user)
     if (!user->chr) {
         return;
     }
-    memory_region_transaction_begin();
     user->notifiers = (GPtrArray *) g_ptr_array_free(user->notifiers, true);
-    memory_region_transaction_commit();
     user->chr = NULL;
 }
 
diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
index 324cd8663a..9a3f238b43 100644
--- a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
+++ b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ typedef struct VhostUserHostNotifier {
     void *addr;
     void *unmap_addr;
     int idx;
+    bool destroy;
 } VhostUserHostNotifier;
 
 /**
-- 
2.41.0
Re: [PATCH V3] virtio/vhost-user: fix qemu abort when hotunplug vhost-user-net device
Posted by Stefano Garzarella 1 year, 3 months ago 
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 02:18:24PM GMT, yaozhenguo wrote:
>During the hot-unplugging of vhost-user-net type network cards,
>the vhost_user_cleanup function may add the same rcu node to
>the rcu linked list.
>The function call relationship in this case is as follows:
>
>vhost_user_cleanup
>    ->vhost_user_host_notifier_remove
>        ->call_rcu(n, vhost_user_host_notifier_free, rcu);
>    ->g_free_rcu(n, rcu);
>
>When this happens, QEMU will abort in try_dequeue:
>
>if (head == &dummy && qatomic_mb_read(&tail) == &dummy.next) {
>    abort();
>}
>
>backtrace is as follows::
>0  __pthread_kill_implementation () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
>1  raise () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
>2  abort () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
>3  try_dequeue () at ../util/rcu.c:235
>4  call_rcu_thread (0) at ../util/rcu.c:288
>5  qemu_thread_start (0) at ../util/qemu-thread-posix.c:541
>6  start_thread () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
>7  clone3 () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
>
>The reason for the abort is that adding two identical nodes to
>the rcu linked list will cause the rcu linked list to become a ring,
>but when the dummy node is added after the two identical nodes,
>the ring is opened. But only one node is added to list with
>rcu_call_count added twice. This will cause rcu try_dequeue abort.
>
>This happens when n->addr != 0. In some scenarios, this does happen.
>For example, this situation will occur when using a 32-queue DPU
>vhost-user-net type network card for hot-unplug testing, because
>VhostUserHostNotifier->addr will be cleared during the processing of
>VHOST_USER_BACKEND_VRING_HOST_NOTIFIER_MSG. However,it is asynchronous,
>so we cannot guarantee that VhostUserHostNotifier->addr is zero in
>vhost_user_cleanup. Therefore, it is necessary to merge g_free_rcu
>and vhost_user_host_notifier_free into one rcu node.
>
>Fixes: 503e355465 ("virtio/vhost-user: dynamically assign VhostUserHostNotifiers")
>Signed-off-by: yaozhenguo <yaozhenguo@jd.com>
>---
>   V1->V2: add n->addr check in vhost_user_get_vring_base and vhost_user_backend_handle_vring_host_notifier to prevent submit same node to rcu list.
>   V2->V3: 1. change "free" to "destroy"
>           2. move "!n->addr && !destroy" checking to vhost_user_host_notifier_remove
>           3. move "!n" checking to vhost_user_host_notifier_remove
>---
> hw/virtio/vhost-user.c         | 43 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
> include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h |  1 +
> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

Some checkpatch errors:

$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict --branch master..HEAD --codespell
ERROR: braces {} are necessary for all arms of this statement
#98: FILE: hw/virtio/vhost-user.c:1207:
+    if (!n)
[...]

ERROR: braces {} are necessary for all arms of this statement
#100: FILE: hw/virtio/vhost-user.c:1209:
+    if (!destroy && !n->addr)
[...]

total: 2 errors, 0 warnings, 96 lines checked

>
>diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
>index 00561daa06..f80d0af76f 100644
>--- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
>+++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
>@@ -1185,9 +1185,16 @@ static int vhost_user_set_vring_num(struct vhost_dev *dev,
>
> static void vhost_user_host_notifier_free(VhostUserHostNotifier *n)
> {
>-    assert(n && n->unmap_addr);
>-    munmap(n->unmap_addr, qemu_real_host_page_size());
>-    n->unmap_addr = NULL;
>+    if (n->unmap_addr) {
>+        munmap(n->unmap_addr, qemu_real_host_page_size());
>+        n->unmap_addr = NULL;
>+    }
>+    if (n->destroy) {
>+        memory_region_transaction_begin();
>+        object_unparent(OBJECT(&n->mr));
>+        memory_region_transaction_commit();
>+        g_free(n);
>+    }
> }
>
> /*
>@@ -1195,17 +1202,25 @@ static void vhost_user_host_notifier_free(VhostUserHostNotifier *n)
>  * under rcu.
>  */
> static void vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(VhostUserHostNotifier *n,
>-                                            VirtIODevice *vdev)
>+                                            VirtIODevice *vdev, bool destroy)
> {
>+    if (!n)
>+        return;
>+    if (!destroy && !n->addr)

IIUC if `destroy` is false and `n->addr` is NULL, we don't have anything 
to do, so we can early return, right?

Maybe we can put a comment on that condition.

>+        return;

Better to use a single if here in this way:
       if (!n || (!destroy && !n->addr)) {
           return;
       }

The rest LGTM!

Thanks,
Stefano

>+
>     if (n->addr) {
>         if (vdev) {
>+            memory_region_transaction_begin();
>             virtio_queue_set_host_notifier_mr(vdev, n->idx, &n->mr, false);
>+            memory_region_transaction_commit();
>         }
>         assert(!n->unmap_addr);
>         n->unmap_addr = n->addr;
>         n->addr = NULL;
>-        call_rcu(n, vhost_user_host_notifier_free, rcu);
>     }
>+    n->destroy = destroy;
>+    call_rcu(n, vhost_user_host_notifier_free, rcu);
> }
>
> static int vhost_user_set_vring_base(struct vhost_dev *dev,
>@@ -1279,9 +1294,7 @@ static int vhost_user_get_vring_base(struct vhost_dev *dev,
>     struct vhost_user *u = dev->opaque;
>
>     VhostUserHostNotifier *n = fetch_notifier(u->user, ring->index);
>-    if (n) {
>-        vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, dev->vdev);
>-    }
>+    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, dev->vdev, false);
>
>     ret = vhost_user_write(dev, &msg, NULL, 0);
>     if (ret < 0) {
>@@ -1562,7 +1575,7 @@ static int vhost_user_backend_handle_vring_host_notifier(struct vhost_dev *dev,
>      * new mapped address.
>      */
>     n = fetch_or_create_notifier(user, queue_idx);
>-    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, vdev);
>+    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, vdev, false);
>
>     if (area->u64 & VHOST_USER_VRING_NOFD_MASK) {
>         return 0;
>@@ -2736,15 +2749,7 @@ static int vhost_user_set_inflight_fd(struct vhost_dev *dev,
> static void vhost_user_state_destroy(gpointer data)
> {
>     VhostUserHostNotifier *n = (VhostUserHostNotifier *) data;
>-    if (n) {
>-        vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, NULL);
>-        object_unparent(OBJECT(&n->mr));
>-        /*
>-         * We can't free until vhost_user_host_notifier_remove has
>-         * done it's thing so schedule the free with RCU.
>-         */
>-        g_free_rcu(n, rcu);
>-    }
>+    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, NULL, true);
> }
>
> bool vhost_user_init(VhostUserState *user, CharBackend *chr, Error **errp)
>@@ -2765,9 +2770,7 @@ void vhost_user_cleanup(VhostUserState *user)
>     if (!user->chr) {
>         return;
>     }
>-    memory_region_transaction_begin();
>     user->notifiers = (GPtrArray *) g_ptr_array_free(user->notifiers, true);
>-    memory_region_transaction_commit();
>     user->chr = NULL;
> }
>
>diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
>index 324cd8663a..9a3f238b43 100644
>--- a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
>+++ b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
>@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ typedef struct VhostUserHostNotifier {
>     void *addr;
>     void *unmap_addr;
>     int idx;
>+    bool destroy;
> } VhostUserHostNotifier;
>
> /**
>-- 
>2.41.0
>
Re: [PATCH V3] virtio/vhost-user: fix qemu abort when hotunplug vhost-user-net device
Posted by Zhenguo Yao 1 year, 3 months ago 
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com> 于2024年10月10日周四 16:20写道：
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 02:18:24PM GMT, yaozhenguo wrote:
> >During the hot-unplugging of vhost-user-net type network cards,
> >the vhost_user_cleanup function may add the same rcu node to
> >the rcu linked list.
> >The function call relationship in this case is as follows:
> >
> >vhost_user_cleanup
> >    ->vhost_user_host_notifier_remove
> >        ->call_rcu(n, vhost_user_host_notifier_free, rcu);
> >    ->g_free_rcu(n, rcu);
> >
> >When this happens, QEMU will abort in try_dequeue:
> >
> >if (head == &dummy && qatomic_mb_read(&tail) == &dummy.next) {
> >    abort();
> >}
> >
> >backtrace is as follows::
> >0  __pthread_kill_implementation () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
> >1  raise () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
> >2  abort () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
> >3  try_dequeue () at ../util/rcu.c:235
> >4  call_rcu_thread (0) at ../util/rcu.c:288
> >5  qemu_thread_start (0) at ../util/qemu-thread-posix.c:541
> >6  start_thread () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
> >7  clone3 () at /usr/lib64/libc.so.6
> >
> >The reason for the abort is that adding two identical nodes to
> >the rcu linked list will cause the rcu linked list to become a ring,
> >but when the dummy node is added after the two identical nodes,
> >the ring is opened. But only one node is added to list with
> >rcu_call_count added twice. This will cause rcu try_dequeue abort.
> >
> >This happens when n->addr != 0. In some scenarios, this does happen.
> >For example, this situation will occur when using a 32-queue DPU
> >vhost-user-net type network card for hot-unplug testing, because
> >VhostUserHostNotifier->addr will be cleared during the processing of
> >VHOST_USER_BACKEND_VRING_HOST_NOTIFIER_MSG. However,it is asynchronous,
> >so we cannot guarantee that VhostUserHostNotifier->addr is zero in
> >vhost_user_cleanup. Therefore, it is necessary to merge g_free_rcu
> >and vhost_user_host_notifier_free into one rcu node.
> >
> >Fixes: 503e355465 ("virtio/vhost-user: dynamically assign VhostUserHostNotifiers")
> >Signed-off-by: yaozhenguo <yaozhenguo@jd.com>
> >---
> >   V1->V2: add n->addr check in vhost_user_get_vring_base and vhost_user_backend_handle_vring_host_notifier to prevent submit same node to rcu list.
> >   V2->V3: 1. change "free" to "destroy"
> >           2. move "!n->addr && !destroy" checking to vhost_user_host_notifier_remove
> >           3. move "!n" checking to vhost_user_host_notifier_remove
> >---
> > hw/virtio/vhost-user.c         | 43 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h |  1 +
> > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> Some checkpatch errors:
>
> $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict --branch master..HEAD --codespell
> ERROR: braces {} are necessary for all arms of this statement
> #98: FILE: hw/virtio/vhost-user.c:1207:
> +    if (!n)
> [...]
>
> ERROR: braces {} are necessary for all arms of this statement
> #100: FILE: hw/virtio/vhost-user.c:1209:
> +    if (!destroy && !n->addr)
> [...]
>
> total: 2 errors, 0 warnings, 96 lines checked
>
I will fix it later.
> >
> >diff --git a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
> >index 00561daa06..f80d0af76f 100644
> >--- a/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
> >+++ b/hw/virtio/vhost-user.c
> >@@ -1185,9 +1185,16 @@ static int vhost_user_set_vring_num(struct vhost_dev *dev,
> >
> > static void vhost_user_host_notifier_free(VhostUserHostNotifier *n)
> > {
> >-    assert(n && n->unmap_addr);
> >-    munmap(n->unmap_addr, qemu_real_host_page_size());
> >-    n->unmap_addr = NULL;
> >+    if (n->unmap_addr) {
> >+        munmap(n->unmap_addr, qemu_real_host_page_size());
> >+        n->unmap_addr = NULL;
> >+    }
> >+    if (n->destroy) {
> >+        memory_region_transaction_begin();
> >+        object_unparent(OBJECT(&n->mr));
> >+        memory_region_transaction_commit();
> >+        g_free(n);
> >+    }
> > }
> >
> > /*
> >@@ -1195,17 +1202,25 @@ static void vhost_user_host_notifier_free(VhostUserHostNotifier *n)
> >  * under rcu.
> >  */
> > static void vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(VhostUserHostNotifier *n,
> >-                                            VirtIODevice *vdev)
> >+                                            VirtIODevice *vdev, bool destroy)
> > {
> >+    if (!n)
> >+        return;
> >+    if (!destroy && !n->addr)
>
> IIUC if `destroy` is false and `n->addr` is NULL, we don't have anything
> to do, so we can early return, right?
>
Yes.
> Maybe we can put a comment on that condition.
>
> >+        return;
>
> Better to use a single if here in this way:
>        if (!n || (!destroy && !n->addr)) {
>            return;
>        }
>
Got it!
> The rest LGTM!
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>
> >+
> >     if (n->addr) {
> >         if (vdev) {
> >+            memory_region_transaction_begin();
> >             virtio_queue_set_host_notifier_mr(vdev, n->idx, &n->mr, false);
> >+            memory_region_transaction_commit();
> >         }
> >         assert(!n->unmap_addr);
> >         n->unmap_addr = n->addr;
> >         n->addr = NULL;
> >-        call_rcu(n, vhost_user_host_notifier_free, rcu);
> >     }
> >+    n->destroy = destroy;
> >+    call_rcu(n, vhost_user_host_notifier_free, rcu);
> > }
> >
> > static int vhost_user_set_vring_base(struct vhost_dev *dev,
> >@@ -1279,9 +1294,7 @@ static int vhost_user_get_vring_base(struct vhost_dev *dev,
> >     struct vhost_user *u = dev->opaque;
> >
> >     VhostUserHostNotifier *n = fetch_notifier(u->user, ring->index);
> >-    if (n) {
> >-        vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, dev->vdev);
> >-    }
> >+    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, dev->vdev, false);
> >
> >     ret = vhost_user_write(dev, &msg, NULL, 0);
> >     if (ret < 0) {
> >@@ -1562,7 +1575,7 @@ static int vhost_user_backend_handle_vring_host_notifier(struct vhost_dev *dev,
> >      * new mapped address.
> >      */
> >     n = fetch_or_create_notifier(user, queue_idx);
> >-    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, vdev);
> >+    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, vdev, false);
> >
> >     if (area->u64 & VHOST_USER_VRING_NOFD_MASK) {
> >         return 0;
> >@@ -2736,15 +2749,7 @@ static int vhost_user_set_inflight_fd(struct vhost_dev *dev,
> > static void vhost_user_state_destroy(gpointer data)
> > {
> >     VhostUserHostNotifier *n = (VhostUserHostNotifier *) data;
> >-    if (n) {
> >-        vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, NULL);
> >-        object_unparent(OBJECT(&n->mr));
> >-        /*
> >-         * We can't free until vhost_user_host_notifier_remove has
> >-         * done it's thing so schedule the free with RCU.
> >-         */
> >-        g_free_rcu(n, rcu);
> >-    }
> >+    vhost_user_host_notifier_remove(n, NULL, true);
> > }
> >
> > bool vhost_user_init(VhostUserState *user, CharBackend *chr, Error **errp)
> >@@ -2765,9 +2770,7 @@ void vhost_user_cleanup(VhostUserState *user)
> >     if (!user->chr) {
> >         return;
> >     }
> >-    memory_region_transaction_begin();
> >     user->notifiers = (GPtrArray *) g_ptr_array_free(user->notifiers, true);
> >-    memory_region_transaction_commit();
> >     user->chr = NULL;
> > }
> >
> >diff --git a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
> >index 324cd8663a..9a3f238b43 100644
> >--- a/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
> >+++ b/include/hw/virtio/vhost-user.h
> >@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ typedef struct VhostUserHostNotifier {
> >     void *addr;
> >     void *unmap_addr;
> >     int idx;
> >+    bool destroy;
> > } VhostUserHostNotifier;
> >
> > /**
> >--
> >2.41.0
> >
>

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.