linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/4] pci/sriov: support VFs dynamic addition

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:32:35 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>
Cc:     "Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)" 
        <longpeng2@...wei.com>, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jianjay.zhou@...wei.com, zhuangshengen@...wei.com,
        arei.gonglei@...wei.com, yechuan@...wei.com,
        huangzhichao@...wei.com, xiehong@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] pci/sriov: support VFs dynamic addition

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:50:34PM +1100, Oliver O'Halloran wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 1:27 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > *snip*
> >
> > Anyway, I'm aware of big cloud providers who are pretty happy with live
> > migration in production.
> 
> I could see someone sufficiently cloudbrained deciding that rebooting
> the hypervisor is fine provided the downtime doesn't violate any
> customer uptime SLAs. Personally I'd only be brave enough to do that
> for a HV hosting internal services which I know are behind a load
> balancer, but apparently there are people at Huawei far braver than I.

My main point in this discussion that Huawei team doesn't actually
provide any meaningful justification why it is great idea to add new
sysfs file. They use HPC as an argument, but in that world, you won't
see many VMs on one server, as it is important to provide separate MSI-X
vectors and CPUs to each VM.

They ask from us optimization (do not add device hierarchy for existing HW)
that doesn't exist in the kernel.

I would say that they are trying to meld SIOV architecture of subfunctions
(SFs) into PCI and SR-IOV world.

Thanks