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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 5 Mar 2019 23:44:33 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC:     Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "michal.lkml@...kovi.net" <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC net-next 0/8] Introducing subdev bus and devlink extension



> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org <linux-kernel-
> owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Parav Pandit
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 5:17 PM
> To: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>; Jakub Kicinski
> <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> Cc: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; michal.lkml@...kovi.net; davem@...emloft.net;
> gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
> Subject: RE: [RFC net-next 0/8] Introducing subdev bus and devlink extension
> 
> Hi Kirti,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 4:40 PM
> > To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>; Jakub Kicinski
> > <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> > Cc: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> > kernel@...r.kernel.org; michal.lkml@...kovi.net; davem@...emloft.net;
> > gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
> > Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/8] Introducing subdev bus and devlink
> > extension
> >
> >
> >
> > > I am novice at mdev level too. mdev or vfio mdev.
> > > Currently by default we bind to same vendor driver, but when it was
> > created as passthrough device, vendor driver won't create netdevice or
> > rdma device for it.
> > > And vfio/mdev or whatever mature available driver would bind at that
> > point.
> > >
> >
> > Using mdev framework, if you want to partition a physical device into
> > multiple logic devices, you can bind those devices to same vendor
> > driver through vfio-mdev, where as if you want to passthrough the
> > device bind it to vfio-pci. If I understand correctly, that is what you are
> looking for.
> >
> >
> We cannot bind a whole PCI device to vfio-pci, reason is, A given PCI device
> has existing protocol devices on it such as netdevs and rdma dev.
> This device is partitioned while those protocol devices exist and mlx5_core,
> mlx5_ib drivers are loaded on it.
> And we also need to connect these objects rightly to eswitch exposed by
> devlink interface (net/core/devlink.c) that supports eswitch binding, health,
> registers, parameters, ports support.
> It also supports existing PCI VFs.
> 
> I don’t think we want to replicate all of this again in mdev subsystem [1].
> 
> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/vfio-mediated-device.txt
> 
> So devlink interface to migrate users from managing VFs to non_VF sub
> device is natural progression.
> 
> However, in future, I believe we would be creating mediated devices on user
> request, to use mdev modules and map them to VM.
> 
> Also 'mdev_bus' is created as a class and not as a bus. This limits to not use
> devlink interface whose handle is bus+device name.
> 
> So one option is to change mdev from class to bus.
> devlink will create mdevs on the bus, mdev driver can probe these devices
> on host system by default.
> And if told to do passthrough, a different driver exposes them to VM.
> How feasible is this?
> 
Wait, I do see a mdev bus and mdevs are created on this bus using mdev_device_create().
So how about we create mdevs on this bus using devlink, instead of sysfs?
And driver side on host gets the mdev_register_driver()->probe()?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists