Message-ID: <AM0PR05MB4866E33AF7203DE47F713FAAD1A40@AM0PR05MB4866.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 16:14:04 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        cjia <cjia@...dia.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/2] Simplify mtty driver and mdev core



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 9:22 PM
> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>; Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>; David S . Miller
> <davem@...emloft.net>; Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>; Cornelia
> Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>; kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; cjia <cjia@...dia.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Simplify mtty driver and mdev core
> 
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:53:06 +0000
> Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 7:58 PM
> > > To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > > Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>; Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>;
> > > David S . Miller <davem@...emloft.net>; Kirti Wankhede
> > > <kwankhede@...dia.com>; Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>;
> > > kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux- kernel@...r.kernel.org; cjia
> > > <cjia@...dia.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Simplify mtty driver and mdev core
> > >
> > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:14:39 +0000
> > > Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 1:42 PM
> > > > > To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > > > > Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>; Jiri Pirko
> > > > > <jiri@...lanox.com>; David S . Miller <davem@...emloft.net>;
> > > > > Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>; Cornelia Huck
> > > <cohuck@...hat.com>;
> > > > > kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; cjia
> > > > > <cjia@...dia.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Simplify mtty driver and mdev core
> > > > >
> > > > > Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 03:33:30PM CEST, parav@...lanox.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
> > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 5:50 PM
> > > > > >> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > > > > >> Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>; Jiri Pirko
> > > > > >> <jiri@...lanox.com>; David S . Miller <davem@...emloft.net>;
> > > > > >> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>; Cornelia Huck
> > > > > <cohuck@...hat.com>;
> > > > > >> kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; cjia
> > > > > >> <cjia@...dia.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Simplify mtty driver and mdev
> > > > > >> core
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:04:02PM CEST, parav@...lanox.com wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> >> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
> > > > > >> >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:28 PM
> > > > > >> >> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > > > > >> >> Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>; Jiri
> > > > > >> >> Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>; David S . Miller
> > > > > >> >> <davem@...emloft.net>; Kirti Wankhede
> > > > > >> >> <kwankhede@...dia.com>; Cornelia Huck
> > > > > >> <cohuck@...hat.com>;
> > > > > >> >> kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; cjia
> > > > > >> >> <cjia@...dia.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Simplify mtty driver and mdev
> > > > > >> >> core
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:42:13AM CEST, parav@...lanox.com
> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> >> >> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
> > > > > >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:59 PM
> > > > > >> >> >> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > > > > >> >> >> Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>; Jiri
> > > > > >> >> >> Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>; David S . Miller
> > > > > >> >> >> <davem@...emloft.net>; Kirti Wankhede
> > > > > >> >> >> <kwankhede@...dia.com>; Cornelia Huck
> > > > > >> >> <cohuck@...hat.com>;
> > > > > >> >> >> kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; cjia
> > > > > >> >> >> <cjia@...dia.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Simplify mtty driver and
> > > > > >> >> >> mdev core
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 08:23:17AM CEST,
> > > > > >> >> >> parav@...lanox.com
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> >> >> >> From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 10:56 AM
> > > > > >> >> >> >> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>; David S . Miller
> > > > > >> >> >> >> <davem@...emloft.net>; Kirti Wankhede
> > > > > >> >> >> >> <kwankhede@...dia.com>; Cornelia Huck
> > > > > >> >> >> >> <cohuck@...hat.com>; kvm@...r.kernel.org;
> > > > > >> >> >> >> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; cjia
> > > > > >> >> >> >> <cjia@...dia.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Simplify mtty driver and
> > > > > >> >> >> >> mdev core
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > Just an example of the alias, not proposing how it's
> set.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > In fact, proposing that the user does not
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > set it, mdev-core provides one
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > automatically.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > Since there seems to be some prefix
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > overhead, as I ask about above in how
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > many characters we actually have to work
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > with in IFNAMESZ, maybe we start with
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > 8 characters (matching your "index"
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > namespace) and expand as necessary for
> > > > > >> >> >> disambiguation.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > If we can eliminate overhead in
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > IFNAMESZ, let's start with
> > > > > >> 12.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > If user is going to choose the alias, why
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > does it have to be limited to
> > > > > >> >> >> >> sha1?
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > Or you just told it as an example?
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > It can be an alpha-numeric string.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > No, I'm proposing a different solution where
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > mdev-core creates an alias based on an
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > abbreviated sha1.  The user does not provide
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> >> >> alias.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > Instead of mdev imposing number of
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > characters on the alias, it should be best
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > left to the user.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > Because in future if netdev improves on
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > the naming scheme, mdev will be
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > limiting it, which is not right.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > So not restricting alias size seems right to me.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > User configuring mdev for networking
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > devices in a given kernel knows what
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > user is doing.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > So user can choose alias name size as it finds
> suitable.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > That's not what I'm proposing, please read again.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > I understood your point. But mdev doesn't know
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > how user is going to use
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > udev/systemd to name the netdev.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > So even if mdev chose to pick 12 characters,
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > it could result in
> > > > > >> >> collision.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > Hence the proposal to provide the alias by the
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > user, as user know the best
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > policy for its use case in the environment its using.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > So 12 character sha1 method will still work by user.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > Haven't you already provided examples where
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > certain drivers or subsystems have unique netdev
> prefixes?
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > If mdev provides a unique alias within the
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > subsystem, couldn't we simply define a netdev
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > prefix for the mdev subsystem and avoid all
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > other collisions?  I'm not in favor of the user
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > providing both a uuid and an alias/instance.
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > For a given prefix, say ens2f0, can two UUID->sha1
> > > > > >> >> >> >> > first 9 characters have
> > > > > >> >> >> >> collision?
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> I think it would be a mistake to waste so many chars
> > > > > >> >> >> >> on a prefix, but
> > > > > >> >> >> >> 9 characters of sha1 likely wouldn't have a
> > > > > >> >> >> >> collision before we have 10s of thousands of
> > > > > >> >> >> >> devices.  Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> Alex
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> >Jiri, Dave,
> > > > > >> >> >> >Are you ok with it for devlink/netdev part?
> > > > > >> >> >> >Mdev core will create an alias from a UUID.
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> >This will be supplied during devlink port attr set
> > > > > >> >> >> >such as,
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> >devlink_port_attrs_mdev_set(struct devlink_port *port,
> > > > > >> >> >> >const char *mdev_alias);
> > > > > >> >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >> >This alias is used to generate representor netdev's
> > > phys_port_name.
> > > > > >> >> >> >This alias from the mdev device's sysfs will be used
> > > > > >> >> >> >by the udev/systemd to
> > > > > >> >> >> generate predicable netdev's name.
> > > > > >> >> >> >Example: enm<mdev_alias_first_12_chars>
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >> What happens in unlikely case of 2 UUIDs collide?
> > > > > >> >> >>
> > > > > >> >> >Since users sees two devices with same phys_port_name,
> > > > > >> >> >user should destroy
> > > > > >> >> recently created mdev and recreate mdev with different UUID?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Driver should make sure phys port name wont collide,
> > > > > >> >So when mdev creation is initiated, mdev core calculates the
> > > > > >> >alias and if there
> > > > > >> is any other mdev with same alias exist, it returns -EEXIST
> > > > > >> error before progressing further.
> > > > > >> >This way user will get to know upfront in event of collision
> > > > > >> >before the mdev
> > > > > >> device gets created.
> > > > > >> >How about that?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Sounds fine to me. Now the question is how many chars do we
> > > > > >> want to
> > > have.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >12 characters from Alex's suggestion similar to git?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you please confirm this scheme looks good now? I like to get
> > > > patches
> > > started.
> > >
> > > My only concern is your comment that in the event of an abbreviated
> > > sha1 collision (as exceptionally rare as that might be at 12-chars),
> > > we'd fail the device create, while my original suggestion was that
> > > vfio-core would add an extra character to the alias.  For
> > > non-networking devices, the sha1 is unnecessary, so the extension
> > > behavior seems preferred.  The user is only responsible to provide a
> > > unique uuid.  Perhaps the failure behavior could be applied based on
> > > the mdev device_api.  A module option on mdev to specify the default
> > > number of alias chars would also be useful for testing so that we
> > > can set it low enough to validate the collision behavior.  Thanks,
> > >
> >
> > Idea is to have mdev alias as optional.
> > Each mdev_parent says whether it wants mdev_core to generate an alias
> > or not. So only networking device drivers would set it to true.
> > For rest, alias won't be generated, and won't be compared either
> > during creation time. User continue to provide only uuid.
> 
> Ok
> 
> > I am tempted to have alias collision detection only within children
> > mdevs of the same parent, but doing so will always mandate to prefix
> > in netdev name. And currently we are left with only 3 characters to
> > prefix it, so that may not be good either. Hence, I think mdev core
> > wide alias is better with 12 characters.
> 
> I suppose it depends on the API, if the vendor driver can ask the mdev core for
> an alias as part of the device creation process, then it could manage the netdev
> namespace for all its devices, choosing how many characters to use, and fail
> the creation if it can't meet a uniqueness requirement.  IOW, mdev-core would
> always provide a full sha1 and therefore gets itself out of the
> uniqueness/collision aspects.
> 
This doesn't work. At mdev core level 20 bytes sha1 are unique, so mdev core allowed to create a mdev.
And then devlink core chooses only 6 bytes (12 characters) and there is collision. Things fall apart.
Since mdev provides unique uuid based scheme, it's the mdev core's ownership to provide unique aliases.

> > I do not understand how an extra character reduces collision, if
> > that's what you meant.
> 
> If the default were for example 3-chars, we might already have device 'abc'.  A
> collision would expose one more char of the new device, so we might add
> device with alias 'abcd'.  I mentioned previously that this leaves an issue for
> userspace that we can't change the alias of device abc, so without additional
> information, userspace can only determine via elimination the mapping of alias
> to device, but userspace has more information available to it in the form of
> sysfs links.
> 
> > Module options are almost not encouraged anymore with other
> > subsystems/drivers.
> 
> We don't live in a world of absolutes.  I agree that the defaults should work in
> the vast majority of cases.  Requiring a user to twiddle module options to make
> things work is undesirable, verging on a bug.  A module option to enable some
> specific feature, unsafe condition, or test that is outside of the typical use case
> is reasonable, imo.
> 
> > For testing collision rate, a sample user space script and sample mtty
> > is easy and get us collision count too. We shouldn't put that using
> > module option in production kernel. I practically have the code ready
> > to play with; Changing 12 to smaller value is easy with module reload.
> >
> > #define MDEV_ALIAS_LEN 12
> 
> If it can't be tested with a shipping binary, it probably won't be tested.  Thanks,
> 
It is not the role of mdev core to expose collision efficiency/deficiency of the sha1.
It can be tested outside before mdev choose to use it.

I am saying we should test with 12 characters with 10,000 or more devices and see how collision occurs.
Even if collision occurs, mdev returns EEXIST status indicating user to pick a different UUID for those rare conditions.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists