[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25174792-4b8e-9c0d-0272-8b5010406365@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 15:10:07 -0700
From: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
CC: Murali Nalajala <quic_mnalajal@...cinc.com>,
Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <quic_svaddagi@...cinc.com>,
Carl van Schaik <quic_cvanscha@...cinc.com>,
Prakruthi Deepak Heragu <quic_pheragu@...cinc.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"Marc Zyngier" <maz@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Amol Maheshwari <amahesh@....qualcomm.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/21] gunyah: vm_mgr: Introduce basic VM Manager
On 11/3/2022 2:39 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022, at 19:44, Elliot Berman wrote:
>> On 11/2/2022 12:31 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> +static long gh_dev_ioctl_create_vm(unsigned long arg)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct gunyah_vm *ghvm;
>>>> + struct file *file;
>>>> + int fd, err;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* arg reserved for future use. */
>>>> + if (arg)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> Do you have something specific in mind here? If 'create'
>>> is the only command you support, and it has no arguments,
>>> it would be easier to do it implicitly during open() and
>>> have each fd opened from /dev/gunyah represent a new VM.
>>>
>>
>> I'd like the argument here to support different types of virtual
>> machines. I want to leave open what "different types" can be in case
>> something new comes up in the future, but immediately "different type"
>> would correspond to a few different authentication mechanisms for
>> virtual machines that Gunyah supports.
>>
>> In this series, I'm only supporting unauthenticated virtual machines
>> because they are the simplest to get up and running from a Linux
>> userspace. When I introduce the other authentication mechanisms, I'll
>> expand much more on how they work, but I'll give quick overview here.
>> Other authentication mechanisms that are currently supported by Gunyah
>> are "protected VM" and, on Qualcomm platforms, "PIL/carveout VMs".
>> Protected VMs are *loosely* similar to the protected firmware design for
>> KVM and intended to support Android virtualization use cases.
>> PIL/carevout VMs are special virtual machines that can run on Qualcomm
>> firmware which authenticate in a way similar to remoteproc firmware (MDT
>> loader).
>
> Ok, thanks for the background. Having different types of virtual
> machines does mean that you may need some complexity, but I would
> still lean towards using the simpler context management of opening
> the /dev/gunyah device node to get a new context, and then using
> ioctls on each fd to manage that context, instead of going through
> the extra indirection of having a secondary 'open context' command
> that always requires opening two file descriptors.
>
>>> I'm correct, you can just turn the entire bus/device/driver
>>> structure within your code into simple function calls, where
>>> the main code calls vm_mgr_probe() as an exported function
>>> instead of creating a device.
>>
>> Ack. I can do this, although I am nervous about this snowballing into a
>> situation where I have a mega-module.
>>
>> > Please stop beating everything in a single module.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/250945d2-3940-9830-63e5-beec5f44010b@linaro.org/
>
> I see you concern, but I wasn't suggesting having everything
> in one module either. There are three common ways of splitting
> things into separate modules:
>
> - I suggested having the vm_mgr module as a library block that
> exports a few symbols which get used by the core module. The
> module doesn't do anything on its own, but loading the core
> module forces loading the vm_mgr.
>
Got the idea, I'll do this.
- Elliot
> - Alternatively one can do the opposite, and have symbols
> exported by the core module, with the vm_mgr module using
> it. This would make sense if you commonly have the core
> module loaded on virtual machines that do not need to manage
> other VMs.
>
> - The method you have is to have a lower "bus" level that
> abstracts device providers from consumers, with both sides
> hooking into the bus. This makes sense for physical buses
> like PCI or USB where both the host driver and the function
> driver are unaware of implementation details of the other,
> but in your case it does not seem like a good fit.
>
> Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists