netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 vfio 0/7] pds vfio driver

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]

Message-ID: <a797f017-4233-0464-45fb-0d9aeab6b4e4@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2023 23:01:33 -0800
From:   Brett Creeley <bcreeley@....com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
        cohuck@...hat.com, yishaih@...dia.com,
        shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
        shannon.nelson@....com, drivers@...sando.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 vfio 0/7] pds vfio driver

On 2/20/2023 5:11 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 04:45:51PM -0800, Brett Creeley wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:39:01AM -0800, Brett Creeley wrote:
>>>> This is a draft patchset for a new vendor specific VFIO driver
>>>> (pds_vfio) for use with the AMD/Pensando Distributed Services Card
>>>> (DSC). This driver is device type agnostic and live migration is
>>>> supported as long as the underlying SR-IOV VF supports live migration
>>>> on the DSC. This driver is a client of the newly introduced pds_core
>>>> driver, which the latest version can be referenced at:
>>>
>>> Just as a broken clock:  non-standard nvme live migration is not
>>> acceptable.  Please work with the NVMe technical workning group to
>>> get this feature standardized.  Note that despite various interested
>>> parties on linux lists I've seen exactly zero activity from the
>>> (not so) smart nic vendors active there.
>>
>>
>> You're right, we intend to work with the respective groups, and we removed
>> any mention of NVMe from the series. However, this solution applies to our
>> other PCI devices.
> 
> The first posting had a PCI ID that was literally only for NVMe and
> now suddenly this very same driver supports "other devices" with nary
> a mention of what those devices are? It strains credibility.
> 
> List the exact IDs of these other devices in your PCI ID table and
> don't try to get away with a PCI_ANY_ID that just happens to match the
> NVMe device ID too.

Okay, we'll look at revising/updating our VF device ID scheme for a 
specific VF and add that entry in the PCI ID table.

> 
> Keeping in mind that PCI IDs of the VF are not supposed to differ from
> the PF so this looks like a spec violation to me too :\
> 
> You have to remove the aux bus stuff also if you want this taken
> seriously. Either aux for all or aux for none, I don't want drivers

Can you please expand on the "aux for all or aux for none" comment? It's 
not clear what you mean here.

> making up their own stuff here. Especially since this implementation
> is wrongly locked and racy.
Can you please provide more details on what's wrongly locked and racy?

Thanks for the review.

Brett

> 
> Jason