On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 9:50 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 10:44:10AM +0800, Cindy Lu wrote:
> >Introduce a new config knob `CONFIG_VHOST_ENABLE_FORK_OWNER_IOCTL`,
> >to control the availability of the `VHOST_FORK_FROM_OWNER` ioctl.
> >When CONFIG_VHOST_ENABLE_FORK_OWNER_IOCTL is set to n, the ioctl
> >is disabled, and any attempt to use it will result in failure.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Cindy Lu <lulu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > drivers/vhost/Kconfig | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 3 +++
> > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/vhost/Kconfig b/drivers/vhost/Kconfig
> >index 020d4fbb947c..bc8fadb06f98 100644
> >--- a/drivers/vhost/Kconfig
> >+++ b/drivers/vhost/Kconfig
> >@@ -96,3 +96,18 @@ config VHOST_CROSS_ENDIAN_LEGACY
> > If unsure, say "N".
> >
> > endif
> >+
> >+config VHOST_ENABLE_FORK_OWNER_IOCTL
> >+ bool "Enable IOCTL VHOST_FORK_FROM_OWNER"
> >+ default n
> >+ help
> >+ This option enables the IOCTL VHOST_FORK_FROM_OWNER, which allows
> >+ userspace applications to modify the thread mode for vhost devices.
> >+
> >+ By default, `CONFIG_VHOST_ENABLE_FORK_OWNER_IOCTL` is set to `n`,
> >+ meaning the ioctl is disabled and any operation using this ioctl
> >+ will fail.
> >+ When the configuration is enabled (y), the ioctl becomes
> >+ available, allowing users to set the mode if needed.
>
> I think I already pointed out, but here there is a mix of tabs and
> spaces that IMHO we should fix.
>
Sorry, I missed this comment while preparing the patch; I’ll fix it.
> >+
> >+ If unsure, say "N".
> >diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> >index fb0c7fb43f78..568e43cb54a9 100644
> >--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> >+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> >@@ -2294,6 +2294,8 @@ long vhost_dev_ioctl(struct vhost_dev *d, unsigned int ioctl, void __user *argp)
> > r = vhost_dev_set_owner(d);
> > goto done;
> > }
> >+
> >+#ifdef CONFIG_VHOST_ENABLE_FORK_OWNER_IOCTL
>
> As I mentioned in the previous version, IMO this patch should be merged
> with the previous patch. I don't think it is good for bisection to have
> a commit with an IOCTL supported in any case and in the next commit
> instead supported only through a config.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the point of having a separate
> patch for this?
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>
will fix this
thanks
cindy
> > if (ioctl == VHOST_FORK_FROM_OWNER) {
> > u8 inherit_owner;
> > /*inherit_owner can only be modified before owner is set*/
> >@@ -2313,6 +2315,7 @@ long vhost_dev_ioctl(struct vhost_dev *d, unsigned int ioctl, void __user *argp)
> > r = 0;
> > goto done;
> > }
> >+#endif
> > /* You must be the owner to do anything else */
> > r = vhost_dev_check_owner(d);
> > if (r)
> >--
> >2.45.0
> >
>
