netdev - Re: [PATCH V2 3/5] vDPA: introduce vDPA bus

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:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 11:05:42 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     mst@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        tiwei.bie@...el.com, maxime.coquelin@...hat.com,
        cunming.liang@...el.com, zhihong.wang@...el.com,
        rob.miller@...adcom.com, xiao.w.wang@...el.com,
        haotian.wang@...ive.com, lingshan.zhu@...el.com,
        eperezma@...hat.com, lulu@...hat.com, parav@...lanox.com,
        kevin.tian@...el.com, stefanha@...hat.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
        hch@...radead.org, aadam@...hat.com, jiri@...lanox.com,
        shahafs@...lanox.com, hanand@...inx.com, mhabets@...arflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/5] vDPA: introduce vDPA bus

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:58:44PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2020/2/13 下午9:41, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:34:10AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > 
> > > >    You have dev, type or
> > > > class to choose from. Type is rarely used and doesn't seem to be used
> > > > by vdpa, so class seems the right choice
> > > > 
> > > > Jason
> > > Yes, but my understanding is class and bus are mutually exclusive. So we
> > > can't add a class to a device which is already attached on a bus.
> > While I suppose there are variations, typically 'class' devices are
> > user facing things and 'bus' devices are internal facing (ie like a
> > PCI device)
> 
> 
> Though all vDPA devices have the same programming interface, but the
> semantic is different. So it looks to me that use bus complies what
> class.rst said:
> 
> "
> 
> Each device class defines a set of semantics and a programming interface
> that devices of that class adhere to. Device drivers are the
> implementation of that programming interface for a particular device on
> a particular bus.
> 
> "

Here we are talking about the /dev/XX node that provides the
programming interface. All the vdpa devices have the same basic
chardev interface and discover any semantic variations 'in band'

> > So why is this using a bus? VDPA is a user facing object, so the
> > driver should create a class vhost_vdpa device directly, and that
> > driver should live in the drivers/vhost/ directory.
>  
> This is because we want vDPA to be generic for being used by different
> drivers which is not limited to vhost-vdpa. E.g in this series, it allows
> vDPA to be used by kernel virtio drivers. And in the future, we will
> probably introduce more drivers in the future.

I don't see how that connects with using a bus.

Every class of virtio traffic is going to need a special HW driver to
enable VDPA, that special driver can create the correct vhost side
class device.

> > For the PCI VF case this driver would bind to a PCI device like
> > everything else
> > 
> > For our future SF/ADI cases the driver would bind to some
> > SF/ADI/whatever device on a bus.
> 
> All these driver will still be bound to their own bus (PCI or other). And
> what the driver needs is to present a vDPA device to virtual vDPA bus on
> top.

Again, I can't see any reason to inject a 'vdpa virtual bus' on
top. That seems like mis-using the driver core.

Jason