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 10:41:06 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...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 11:05:42AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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.


That's just a ton of useless code duplication, and a good chance
to have minor variations in implementations confusing
userspace.

Instead, each device implement the same interface, and then
vhost sits on top.

> > > 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

That bus is exactly what Greg KH proposed. There are other ways
to solve this I guess but this bikeshedding is getting tiring.
Come on it's an internal kernel interface, if we feel
it was a wrong direction to take we can change our minds later.
Main thing is getting UAPI right.

-- 
MST