On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 02:15:22PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:
...
  Replace ASSERT() on the number of iovec in the element
and on
 the first entry length by a debug() message.
 
 Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <lvivier(a)redhat.com> 
Removing the ASSERT() makes sense, but is it safe to carry on to the
tap_add_packet() if the packet is not in the layout we expect?  Should
we be bailing out of the function (effectively dropping the packet)
instead?

...
  ---
  vu_common.c | 8 ++++++--
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 
 diff --git a/vu_common.c b/vu_common.c
 index 431fba6be0c0..d34ae6dc1df3 100644
 --- a/vu_common.c
 +++ b/vu_common.c
 @@ -195,8 +195,12 @@ static void vu_handle_tx(struct vu_dev *vdev, int index,
  				        hdrlen);
  		} else {
  			/* vnet header can be in a separate iovec */
 -			ASSERT(elem[count].out_num == 2);
 -			ASSERT(elem[count].out_sg[0].iov_len == (size_t)hdrlen);
 +			if (elem[count].out_num != 2)
 +				debug("virtio-net tranmit queue contains more than one buffer ([%d]:
%u)",
 +				      count, elem[count].out_num);
 +			if (elem[count].out_sg[0].iov_len != (size_t)hdrlen)
 +				debug("virtio-net transmit queue entry not aligned on hdrlen ([%d]: %d !=
%zu)",
 +				count, hdrlen, elem[count].out_sg[0].iov_len);
  			tap_add_packet(vdev->context,
  				       elem[count].out_sg[1].iov_len,
  				       (char *)elem[count].out_sg[1].iov_base); 
-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson