| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <03cfbcc2-fef0-c9d8-0b08-798b2a293b8c@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 11:03:12 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Cc: "mst@...hat.com" <mst@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"tiwei.bie@...el.com" <tiwei.bie@...el.com>,
"maxime.coquelin@...hat.com" <maxime.coquelin@...hat.com>,
"cunming.liang@...el.com" <cunming.liang@...el.com>,
"zhihong.wang@...el.com" <zhihong.wang@...el.com>,
"rob.miller@...adcom.com" <rob.miller@...adcom.com>,
"xiao.w.wang@...el.com" <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>,
"haotian.wang@...ive.com" <haotian.wang@...ive.com>,
"lingshan.zhu@...el.com" <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>,
"eperezma@...hat.com" <eperezma@...hat.com>,
"lulu@...hat.com" <lulu@...hat.com>,
Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
"kevin.tian@...el.com" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
"stefanha@...hat.com" <stefanha@...hat.com>,
"rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"aadam@...hat.com" <aadam@...hat.com>,
"jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com" <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@...lanox.com>,
"hanand@...inx.com" <hanand@...inx.com>,
"mhabets@...arflare.com" <mhabets@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] vDPA: introduce vDPA bus
On 2020/1/16 下午11:22, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 08:42:29PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> vDPA device is a device that uses a datapath which complies with the
>> virtio specifications with vendor specific control path. vDPA devices
>> can be both physically located on the hardware or emulated by
>> software. vDPA hardware devices are usually implemented through PCIE
>> with the following types:
>>
>> - PF (Physical Function) - A single Physical Function
>> - VF (Virtual Function) - Device that supports single root I/O
>> virtualization (SR-IOV). Its Virtual Function (VF) represents a
>> virtualized instance of the device that can be assigned to different
>> partitions
>> - VDEV (Virtual Device) - With technologies such as Intel Scalable
>> IOV, a virtual device composed by host OS utilizing one or more
>> ADIs.
>> - SF (Sub function) - Vendor specific interface to slice the Physical
>> Function to multiple sub functions that can be assigned to different
>> partitions as virtual devices.
> I really hope we don't end up with two different ways to spell this
> same thing.
I think you meant ADI vs SF. It looks to me that ADI is limited to the
scope of scalable IOV but SF not.
>
>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_VDPA) += vdpa.o
>> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/vdpa/vdpa.c b/drivers/virtio/vdpa/vdpa.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..2b0e4a9f105d
>> +++ b/drivers/virtio/vdpa/vdpa.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +/*
>> + * vDPA bus.
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (c) 2019, Red Hat. All rights reserved.
>> + * Author: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> 2020 tests days
Will fix.
>
>> + *
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/idr.h>
>> +#include <linux/vdpa.h>
>> +
>> +#define MOD_VERSION "0.1"
> I think module versions are discouraged these days
Will remove.
>
>> +#define MOD_DESC "vDPA bus"
>> +#define MOD_AUTHOR "Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>"
>> +#define MOD_LICENSE "GPL v2"
>> +
>> +static DEFINE_IDA(vdpa_index_ida);
>> +
>> +struct device *vdpa_get_parent(struct vdpa_device *vdpa)
>> +{
>> + return vdpa->dev.parent;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(vdpa_get_parent);
>> +
>> +void vdpa_set_parent(struct vdpa_device *vdpa, struct device *parent)
>> +{
>> + vdpa->dev.parent = parent;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(vdpa_set_parent);
>> +
>> +struct vdpa_device *dev_to_vdpa(struct device *_dev)
>> +{
>> + return container_of(_dev, struct vdpa_device, dev);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_to_vdpa);
>> +
>> +struct device *vdpa_to_dev(struct vdpa_device *vdpa)
>> +{
>> + return &vdpa->dev;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vdpa_to_dev);
> Why these trivial assessors? Seems unnecessary, or should at least be
> static inlines in a header
Will fix.
>
>> +int register_vdpa_device(struct vdpa_device *vdpa)
>> +{
> Usually we want to see symbols consistently prefixed with vdpa_*, is
> there a reason why register/unregister are swapped?
I follow the name from virtio. I will switch to vdpa_*.
>
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + if (!vdpa_get_parent(vdpa))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (!vdpa->config)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + err = ida_simple_get(&vdpa_index_ida, 0, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (err < 0)
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + vdpa->dev.bus = &vdpa_bus;
>> + device_initialize(&vdpa->dev);
> IMHO device_initialize should not be called inside something called
> register, toooften we find out that the caller drivers need the device
> to be initialized earlier, ie to use the kref, or something.
>
> I find the best flow is to have some init function that does the
> device_initialize and sets the device_name that the driver can call
> early.
Ok, will do.
>
> Shouldn't there be a device/driver matching process of some kind?
The question is what do we want do match here.
1) "virtio" vs "vhost", I implemented matching method for this in mdev
series, but it looks unnecessary for vDPA device driver to know about
this. Anyway we can use sysfs driver bind/unbind to switch drivers
2) virtio device id and vendor id. I'm not sure we need this consider
the two drivers so far (virtio/vhost) are all bus drivers.
Thanks
>
> Jason
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists