From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEC4A00BE; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:13:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2921E538; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:13:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com (mail-io1-f67.google.com [209.85.166.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC9B1E536 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 13:13:11 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id 1so10681070iou.4 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:13:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=c7hwZaxUynBj2BPZC8xEoO13TcAJ/znQE746pSGKQ4M=; b=QxdK8WnIvEQvC9bL+2Gh6aC2sjGbuRMhe6jUM5VbL656DtxMNgDHXdqOyOrJ6UH7Cl 2+cZH8vtO1/P4E3Zm0oE3L1IlL8lLARDzhaHpJzOBtNhBMhD4zPv03Pydp5bTRx7MtAL wR08gAt9bZLX3u636oxLMPN1+GFFmb8MWKC7CzB0afyITeXUzcM3roQJVNV60YpnTSQn UnExeUvH4AOngQbK/YWvX4bo+cn/yYpUMDt4j+n9tONhRcbw6wspDiaCY6xoPA6Oyl1f lePsv8TY9LdsKor0Bss3KpXUyS+3FSGL6HeNjNuX0ShpEJZuKJH5FxSZ6CaMUyd78Dyq A01A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c7hwZaxUynBj2BPZC8xEoO13TcAJ/znQE746pSGKQ4M=; b=tECgA9Jnzg8qkTxRJvMyX423kUrsd5ft3eaNA8t1vTxdLnd4EXKa4gZcwOEAm99BdQ Mx/Ygkmbz7iy2YnqvIr/aDmv5url0v++IEE9ZoeNzyQfPfz0R95L1XanmJyiTl+k4pBP r+SguNes5NhLs2S/1eGQqELXZf0NdsWbSF88V9W2YKKg5xYkUD+VpH0jCk+PEm4faOch H5NekYu0ziedQBbzYvIl75S37r7iPNOn03zn29aEmawEvUvjJqov01uEiDASwXQBcREL UcLP8iMsDHwDdwklOKgvI1Q1UOHyzb/3KvqZudSS0doOpj+ncSCdsxr1T16d9g5das8Z a7aQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWgCRw+vHKGO+bQhUqm4nk1lLiHGQXwFKJP1w+QbWnCVZM3SB6I VmBnaikYUsewE8a5FsyOkRDJsK/kPgdJSVyom34= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzQmBaobhBpP1dfCojEljw15ZjRgLq0uaxuFGpmDVW8g6jRWdLiZ+GnuB/bRxzsPlBQOvtTx1Wxz39P298Y9ZA= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9613:: with SMTP id w19mr10016582iol.271.1572610390489; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:13:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190906091230.13923-1-vattunuru@marvell.com> <1612178.XsdEgM4R2a@xps> <1659615.GCIDYkGxRJ@xps> <7c5ea87954223c075529515e4ff20d9036899d02.camel@debian.org> In-Reply-To: <7c5ea87954223c075529515e4ff20d9036899d02.camel@debian.org> From: Jerin Jacob Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:42:54 +0530 Message-ID: To: Luca Boccassi Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dpdk-dev , Christian Ehrhardt , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Vamsi Krishna Attunuru , Andrew Rybchenko , Ferruh Yigit , maxime.coquelin@redhat.com, Stephen Hemminger , "Richardson, Bruce" , Alex Williamson , David Marchand , Kevin Traynor , Anatoly Burakov , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Honnappa Nagarahalli , Liang-Min Wang , Alexander Duyck , Peter Xu , Eric Auger Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/1] kernel/linux: introduce vfio_pf kernel module X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 5:24 PM Luca Boccassi wrote: > > For distros, out-of-tree kernel modules are painful. From my POV, it I agree. > would be preferable to try and find a solution upstream, even if it is > going to be difficult and require a lot of negotiation and work. I understand from RH, They are not packaging out of tree modules, Would like to know which are the distributions packaging existing KNI and IGB_UIO modules? IMO, packaging 1 module vs N module is the same pain as it a matter of kernel dependency in packaging. If some reason, we decide to remove the IGB_UIO then we can remove this module as well. > > On Thu, 2019-10-31 at 18:03 +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > We don't get enough attention on this topic. > > Let me rephrase the issue and the proposals with more people Cc'ed. > > > > We are talking about SR-IOV VFs in VMs > > with a PF managed on the host by DPDK. > > The PF driver is either a (1) bifurcated (Mellanox case), > > or (2) bound to UIO with igb_uio, or (3) bound to VFIO. > > > > In case 1, the PF is still managed by a kernel driver, so no issue. > > > > In case 2, the PF is managed by UIO. > > There is no SR-IOV support in upstream UIO, > > but the out-of-tree module igb_uio works. > > However we would like to drop this legacy module from DPDK. > > Some (most) Linux distributions do not package igb_uio anyway. > > The other issue is that igb_uio is using physical addressing, > > which is not acceptable with OCTEON TX2 for performance reason. > > > > In case 3, the PF is managed by VFIO. This is the case we want to > > fix. > > VFIO does not allow to create VFs. > > The workaround is to create VFs before binding the PF to VFIO. > > But since Linux 4.19, VFIO forbids any SR-IOV VF management. > > There is a security concern about allowing userspace to manage SR-IOV > > VF messages and taking the responsibility for VFs in the guest. > > > > It is desired to allow the system admin deciding the security levels, > > by adding a flag in VFIO "let me manage VFs, I know what I am doing". > > Reference of "recent" discussion: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/6/855 > > > > For now, there is no upstream solution merged. > > > > This patch is proposing a solution using an out-of-tree module. > > In this case, the admin will decide explicitly to bind the PF to > > vfio_pf. > > Unfortunately this solution won't work in environments which > > forbid any out-of-tree module. > > Another concern is that it looks like DPDK-only solution. > > > > We have an issue but we do not want to propose a half-solution > > which would harm other projects and users. > > So the question is: > > Do we accept this patch as a temporary solution? > > Or can we get an agreement soon for an upstream kernel solution? > > > > Thanks for reading and giving your (clear) opinion. > > > > > > 06/09/2019 15:27, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon < > > > thomas@monjalon.net > > > > > > > > 06/09/2019 11:12, > > > > vattunuru@marvell.com > > > > : > > > > > From: Vamsi Attunuru < > > > > > vattunuru@marvell.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The DPDK use case such as VF representer or OVS offload etc > > > > > would call > > > > > for PF and VF PCIe devices to bind vfio-pci module to enable > > > > > IOMMU > > > > > protection. > > > > > > > > > > In addition to vSwitch use case, unlike, other PCI class of > > > > > devices, > > > > > Network class of PCIe devices would have additional > > > > > responsibility on > > > > > the PF devices such as promiscuous mode support etc. > > > > > > > > > > The above use cases demand VFIO needs bound to PF and its VF > > > > > devices. > > > > > This is use case is not supported in Linux kernel, due to a > > > > > security > > > > > issue where it is possible to have DoS in case if VF attached > > > > > to guest > > > > > over vfio-pci and netdev kernel driver runs on it and which > > > > > something > > > > > VF representer would like to enable it. > > > > > > > > > > Since we can not differentiate, the vfio-pci bounded VF devices > > > > > runs > > > > > DPDK application or netdev driver in guest, we can not > > > > > introduce any > > > > > scheme to fix DoS case and therefore not have proper support of > > > > > this > > > > > in the upstream kernel. > > > > > > > > > > The igb_uio enables such PF and VF binding support for non- > > > > > iommu > > > > > devices to make VF representer or OVS offload run on non-iommu > > > > > devices > > > > > with DoS vulnerability for netdev driver as VF. > > > > > > > > > > This kernel module, facilitate to enable SRIOV on PF devices, > > > > > therefore, to run both PF and VF devices in VFIO mode knowing > > > > > its > > > > > impacts like igb_uio driver functions of non-iommu devices. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vamsi Attunuru < > > > > > vattunuru@marvell.com > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob < > > > > > jerinj@marvell.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry I fail to properly understand the explanation above. > > > > Please try to split in shorter sentences. > > > > > > > > About the request to add an out-of-tree Linux kernel driver, I > > > > guess Jerin is well > > > > aware that we don't want such anymore. > > > > > > Yes. I am aware of it. I don't like the out of tree modules either. > > > But, This case, > > > I suggested Vamsi to have out of tree module. > > > > > > Let me describe the issue and let us discuss how to tackle > > > the problem: > > > > > > # Linux kernel wont allow VFIO PF to have SRIOV enable. > > > > > > Patches and on going discussion are here: > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10522381/ > > > > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/748526/ > > > > > > > > > Based on my understanding the reason for NOT allowing the > > > VFIO PF to have SRIOV enable is genuine from kernel point of > > > View but not from DPDK point of view. > > > > > > Here is the sequence to describe the problem > > > 1) Consider Linux kernel allowed VFIO PCI SRIOV enable > > > 2) PF bound to vfio-pci > > > 3) using SRIOV infrastructure of vfio-pci PF driver, > > > VFs are created > > > 4) DPDK application bound to PF and VF, No issue here. > > > 5) Assume DPDK application bound to PF and VF bound > > > To netdev kernel driver. Now, there is a genuine concern > > > From kernel point of view that, DPDK PF can intercept, > > > VF mailbox message or so and deny the Kernel request > > > Or what if DPDK PF application crashes? > > > > > > To avoid the case (5), (3) is not allowed in stock kernel. > > > Which makes sense IMO. > > > > > > Now, From DPDK PoV, step 5 is valid as we have > > > Rte_flow's VF action etc used to enable such case. > > > Where, user can program the PF's rte_flow to steer > > > Some traffic to VF, where VF can be, DPDK application or > > > Linux kernel netdev driver. > > > > > > This patch enables the step (3) to enable step (5) from DPDK > > > PoV. i.e DPDK needs to allow PF to bind to DPDK with VFs. > > > > > > Why this issue now: > > > - igb_uio kernel driver is used as enabling step (3) > > > See store_max_vfs() kernel/linux/igb_uio/igb_uio.c > > > This is fine for non-iommu device, IOMMU devices > > > needs VFIO. > > > - We would like support VFIO for IOMMU protection > > > And enable step (5) as DPDK supports form the spec level. > > > i.e need to fix feature disparity between iommu vs > > > non-iommu based devices. > > > > > > Note: > > > We may not need a brand new kernel module, we could move > > > this logic to igb_uio if maintenance is concern. > > > > > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Luca Boccassi