DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>
To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/1] kernel/linux: introduce vfio_pf kernel module
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 05:07:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <MWHPR18MB16457D68B4CA72C9A82FA673A69A0@MWHPR18MB1645.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR18MB2424ACA16BBA9D6387FBA10CC8BA0@BYAPR18MB2424.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 6:58 PM
> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Vamsi Krishna Attunuru
> <vattunuru@marvell.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/1] kernel/linux: introduce vfio_pf kernel
> module
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 3:15 PM
> > To: Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/1] kernel/linux: introduce vfio_pf
> > kernel module
> >
> > 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.
> 

@All, we are expecting to merge this in 19.11 release and if any one have comments please respond.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-10-08  5:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-06  9:12 vattunuru
2019-09-06  9:45 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-09-06 13:27   ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-09-25  4:06     ` Vamsi Krishna Attunuru
2019-09-25  7:18       ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-10-08  5:07     ` Vamsi Krishna Attunuru [this message]
2019-10-31 17:03     ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-01 11:54       ` Luca Boccassi
2019-11-01 12:12         ` Jerin Jacob
2019-11-04 11:16         ` Bruce Richardson
2019-11-05 10:09           ` Luca Boccassi
2019-11-06 22:32       ` Alex Williamson
2019-11-07  5:02         ` Jerin Jacob
2019-11-15  6:57           ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-15  7:01             ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-08 15:12 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-10-08 15:28   ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-09 23:28     ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-10-10  6:02       ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-13  7:20         ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-16 11:37           ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-23 17:08             ` Jerin Jacob
2019-10-24 11:08       ` Jerin Jacob

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=MWHPR18MB16457D68B4CA72C9A82FA673A69A0@MWHPR18MB1645.namprd18.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=vattunuru@marvell.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).