[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200205065836.12308197@x1.home>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 06:58:36 -0700
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dev@...k.org, mtosatti@...hat.com,
thomas@...jalon.net, bluca@...ian.org, jerinjacobk@...il.com,
bruce.richardson@...el.com, cohuck@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] vfio/pci: SR-IOV support
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 23:01:09 -0800
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 04:05:34PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > We address this in a few ways in this series. First, we can use a bus
> > notifier and the driver_override facility to make sure VFs are bound
> > to the vfio-pci driver by default. This should eliminate the chance
> > that a VF is accidentally bound and used by host drivers. We don't
> > however remove the ability for a host admin to change this override.
>
> That is just such a bad idea. Using VFs in the host is a perfectly
> valid use case that you are breaking.
vfio-pci currently does not allow binding to a PF with VFs enabled and
does not provide an sriov_configure callback, so it's not possible to
have VFs on a vfio-pci bound PF. Therefore I'm not breaking any
existing use cases. I'm also not preventing VFs from being used in the
host, I only set a default driver_override value, which can be replaced
if a different driver binding is desired. So I also don't see that I'm
breaking a usage model here. I do stand by the idea that VFs sourced
from a user owned PF should not by default be used in the host (ie.
autoprobed on device add). There's a pci-pf-stub driver that can be
used to create VFs on a PF if no userspace access of the PF is required.
Thanks,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists