linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] nvme-vfio: Add a document for the NVMe device

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:   Sun, 11 Dec 2022 14:05:04 +0200
From:   Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Lei Rao <lei.rao@...el.com>, kbusch@...nel.org, axboe@...com,
        kch@...dia.com, sagi@...mberg.me, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
        cohuck@...hat.com, yishaih@...dia.com,
        shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
        mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        eddie.dong@...el.com, yadong.li@...el.com, yi.l.liu@...el.com,
        Konrad.wilk@...cle.com, stephen@...eticom.com, hang.yuan@...el.com,
        Oren Duer <oren@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] nvme-vfio: Add a document for the NVMe device


On 12/6/2022 5:01 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 10:48:22AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> Sadly in Linux we don't have a SRIOV VF lifecycle model that is any
>> use.
> Beward:  The secondary function might as well be a physical function
> as well.  In fact one of the major customers for "smart" multifunction
> nvme devices prefers multi-PF devices over SR-IOV VFs. (and all the
> symmetric dual ported devices are multi-PF as well).
>
> So this isn't really about a VF live cycle, but how to manage life
> migration, especially on the receive / restore side.  And restoring
> the entire controller state is extremely invasive and can't be done
> on a controller that is in any classic form live.  In fact a lot
> of the state is subsystem-wide, so without some kind of virtualization
> of the subsystem it is impossible to actually restore the state.

ohh, great !

I read this subsystem virtualization proposal of yours after I sent my 
proposal for subsystem virtualization in patch 1/5 thread.
I guess this means that this is the right way to go.
Lets continue brainstorming this idea. I think this can be the way to 
migrate NVMe controllers in a standard way.

>
> To cycle back to the hardware that is posted here, I'm really confused
> how it actually has any chance to work and no one has even tried
> to explain how it is supposed to work.

I guess in vendor specific implementation you can assume some things 
that we are discussing now for making it as a standard.