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 13:56:12 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        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 Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:00:50AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> 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.

What we really want is a solution where the SRIOV device exist for the
HW but isn't registered yet as a pci_device. We have endless problems
with needing to configure SRIOV instances at the PF before they get
plugged into the kernel and the no driver autoprobe buisness is such a
hack.

But that is a huge problem and not this series.

Jason