netdev - Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu: Introduce VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY feature bit to virtio

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 12:10:07 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com>,
        "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, aaron.f.brown@...el.com,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
        Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
        Venu Busireddy <venu.busireddy@...cle.com>,
        vijay.balakrishna@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu: Introduce
 VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY feature bit to virtio_net

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 00:43:24 +0300
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 05:09:55PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > Would it be more helpful to focus on generic
> > migration support for vfio instead of going about it device by device?  
> 
> Just to note this approach is actually device by device *type*.  It's
> mostly device agnostic for a given device type so you can migrate
> between hosts with very different hardware.

This enables heterogeneous environments, yes.

But one drawback of that is that you cannot exploit any hardware
specialities - it seems you're limited to what the paravirtual device
supports. This is limiting for more homogeneous environments.

> 
> And support for more PV device types has other advantages
> such as security and forward compatibility to future hosts.

But again the drawback is that we can't exploit new capabilities
easily, can we?

> 
> Finally, it all can happen mostly within QEMU. User is currently
> required to enable it but it's pretty lightweight.
> 
> OTOH vfio migration generally requires actual device-specific work, and
> only works when hosts are mostly identical. When they aren't it's easy
> to blame the user, but tools for checking host compatiblity are
> currently non-existent. Upper layer management will also have to learn
> about host and device compatibility wrt migration. At the moment they
> can't even figure it out wrt software versions of vhost in kernel and
> dpdk so I won't hold my breath for all of this happening quickly.

Yes, that's a real problem.

I think one issue here is that we want to support really different
environments. For the case here, we have a lot of different networking
adapters, but the guests are basically interested in one thing: doing
network traffic. On the other hand, I'm thinking of the mainframe
environment, where we have a very limited set of devices to support,
but at the same time want to exploit their specialities, so the pv
approach is limiting. For that use case, generic migration looks more
useful.