netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next v7 0/4] Dynamically assign MSI-X vectors count

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:   Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:00:50 -0700
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next v7 0/4] Dynamically assign MSI-X vectors count

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:44 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:28:36PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:20:21PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 02:36:46PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:21:44PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > NVMe and mlx5 have basically identical functionality in this respect.
> > > > > Other devices and vendors will likely implement similar functionality.
> > > > > It would be ideal if we had an interface generic enough to support
> > > > > them all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the mlx5 interface proposed here sufficient to support the NVMe
> > > > > model?  I think it's close, but not quite, because the the NVMe
> > > > > "offline" state isn't explicitly visible in the mlx5 model.
> > > >
> > > > I thought Keith basically said "offline" wasn't really useful as a
> > > > distinct idea. It is an artifact of nvme being a standards body
> > > > divorced from the operating system.
> > > >
> > > > In linux offline and no driver attached are the same thing, you'd
> > > > never want an API to make a nvme device with a driver attached offline
> > > > because it would break the driver.
> > >
> > > I think the sticky part is that Linux driver attach is not visible to
> > > the hardware device, while the NVMe "offline" state *is*.  An NVMe PF
> > > can only assign resources to a VF when the VF is offline, and the VF
> > > is only usable when it is online.
> > >
> > > For NVMe, software must ask the PF to make those online/offline
> > > transitions via Secondary Controller Offline and Secondary Controller
> > > Online commands [1].  How would this be integrated into this sysfs
> > > interface?
> >
> > Either the NVMe PF driver tracks the driver attach state using a bus
> > notifier and mirrors it to the offline state, or it simply
> > offline/onlines as part of the sequence to program the MSI change.
> >
> > I don't see why we need any additional modeling of this behavior.
> >
> > What would be the point of onlining a device without a driver?
>
> Agree, we should remember that we are talking about Linux kernel model
> and implementation, where _no_driver_ means _offline_.

The only means you have of guaranteeing the driver is "offline" is by
holding on the device lock and checking it. So it is only really
useful for one operation and then you have to release the lock. The
idea behind having an "offline" state would be to allow you to
aggregate multiple potential operations into a single change.

For example you would place the device offline, then change
interrupts, and then queues, and then you could online it again. The
kernel code could have something in place to prevent driver load on
"offline" devices. What it gives you is more of a transactional model
versus what you have right now which is more of a concurrent model.