netdev - Re: [PATCH v10 vfio 4/7] vfio/pds: Add VFIO live migration support

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: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 15:13:53 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Cc: Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@....com>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	"yishaih@...dia.com" <yishaih@...dia.com>,
	"shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com" <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
	"shannon.nelson@....com" <shannon.nelson@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 vfio 4/7] vfio/pds: Add VFIO live migration support

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 07:31:31AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 9:27 PM
> > 
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 06:49:12AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > 
> > > What is the criteria for 'reasonable'? How does CSPs judge that such
> > > device can guarantee a *reliable* reasonable window so live migration
> > > can be enabled in the production environment?
> > 
> > The CSP needs to work with the device vendor to understand how it fits
> > into their system, I don't see how we can externalize this kind of
> > detail in a general way.
> > 
> > > I'm afraid that we are hiding a non-deterministic factor in current protocol.
> > 
> > Yes
> > 
> > > But still I don't think it's a good situation where the user has ZERO
> > > knowledge about the non-negligible time in the stopping path...
> > 
> > In any sane device design this will be a small period of time. These
> > timeouts should be to protect against a device that has gone wild.
> > 
> 
> Any example how 'small' it will be (e.g. <1ms)?

Not personally..

> Should we define a *reasonable* threshold in VFIO community which
> any new variant driver should provide information to judge against?

Ah, I think we are just too new to get into such details. I think we
need some real world experience to see if this is really an issue.

> The reason why I keep discussing it is that IMHO achieving negligible
> stop time is a very challenging task for many accelerators. e.g. IDXD
> can be stopped only after completing all the pending requests. While
> it allows software to configure the max pending work size (and a
> reasonable setting could meet both migration SLA and performance
> SLA) the worst-case draining latency could be in 10's milliseconds which
> cannot be ignored by the VMM.

Well, what would you report here if you had the opportunity to report
something? Some big number? Then what?

> Or do you think it's still better left to CSP working with the device vendor
> even in this case, given the worst-case latency could be affected by
> many factors hence not something which a kernel driver can accurately
> estimate?

This is my fear, that it is so complicated that reducing it to any
sort of cross-vendor data is not feasible. At least I'd like to see
someone experiment with what information would be useful to qemu
before we add kernel ABI..

Jason