Date:   Fri, 8 Jun 2018 15:25:59 -0700
From:   Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, kys@...rosoft.com,
        haiyangz@...rosoft.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] failover: eliminate callback hell

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:30:27 +0300
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 09:25:12AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 05:42:31AM CEST, stephen@...workplumber.org wrote:
>> > >The net failover should be a simple library, not a virtual
>> > >object with function callbacks (see callback hell).
>> >
>> > Why just a library? It should do a common things. I think it should be a
>> > virtual object. Looks like your patch again splits the common
>> > functionality into multiple drivers. That is kind of backwards attitude.
>> > I don't get it. We should rather focus on fixing the mess the
>> > introduction of netvsc-bonding caused and switch netvsc to 3-netdev
>> > model.
>>
>> So it seems that at least one benefit for netvsc would be better
>> handling of renames.
>>
>> Question is how can this change to 3-netdev happen?  Stephen is
>> concerned about risk of breaking some userspace.
>>
>> Stephen, this seems to be the usecase that IFF_HIDDEN was trying to
>> address, and you said then "why not use existing network namespaces
>> rather than inventing a new abstraction". So how about it then? Do you
>> want to find a way to use namespaces to hide the PV device for netvsc
>> compatibility?
>>
>
> Netvsc can't work with 3 dev model. MS has worked with enough distro's and
> startups that all demand eth0 always be present. And VF may come and go.
> After this history, there is a strong motivation not to change how kernel
> behaves. Switching to 3 device model would be perceived as breaking
> existing userspace.
>
> With virtio you can  work it out with the distro's yourself.
> There is no pre-existing semantics to deal with.
>
> For the virtio, I don't see the need for IFF_HIDDEN.

I have a somewhat different view regarding IFF_HIDDEN. The purpose of
that flag, as well as the 1-netdev model, is to have a means to
inherit the interface name from the VF, and to eliminate playing hacks
around renaming devices, customizing udev rules and et al. Why
inheriting VF's name important? To allow existing config/setup around
VF continues to work across kernel feature upgrade. Most of network
config files in all distros are based on interface names. Few are MAC
address based but making lower slaves hidden would cover the rest. And
most importantly, preserving the same level of user experience as
using raw VF interface once getting all ndo_ops and ethtool_ops
exposed. This is essential to realize transparent live migration that
users dont have to learn and be aware of the undertaken.

It's unfair to say all virtio use cases don't need IFF_HIDDEN. A few
use cases don't care about getting slaves exposed, the 3-netdev model
would work for them. For the rest, the pre-existing semantics to them
is the single VF device model they've already dealt with. This is
nothing different than having Azure stick to the 2-netdev model
because of existing user base IMHO.

-Siwei


> With 3-dev model as long as you mark the PV and VF devices
> as slaves, then userspace knows to leave them alone. Assuming userspace
> is already able to deal with team and bond devices.
> Any time you introduce new UAPI behavior something breaks.
>
> On the rename front, I really don't care if VF can be renamed. And for
> netvsc want to allow the PV device to be renamed. Udev developers want that
> but have not found a stable/persistent value to expose to userspace
> to allow it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists