From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F28F91B2AE for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 13:25:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BECBC3; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 07:25:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 06 Nov 2017 07:25:04 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fridaylinux.org; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=7CLlR++eCJn61B5YKK4cFYS+ZKGaBxOcXXgIZ/5Na70=; b=M7zpRsvL 4npgTWYe9O9TrQuZqxHMD1DwK4+YtHdU0eGD4JvVAA/PoV6w8AypyHGOsqBLAO0Z 6S9xWeYT+BpaWgNClpqcWJRVhkP+OOhTioq27oS40HpPDi3Hhs5Zf3S1wcELgDDX V+V6C3eYvOOdwMUxUiIzLGxZt7cCM4z2AZF4Ic9xRq9lVyNX5ffNLp/99BxKu+2n gTk8ehc/NLANd4BuUWrBFP57q6Yd0QyzB0YUXyhBYlEZzYVW0BlF9hcnFsLCrEwD g2NJ6//BgMT7MfBYxW6FHflgxDn2xudChTAJHJDnbEOaCkBiLQDLJNDluMYDYXpa ndGyLtyOb1QpbQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=7CLlR++eCJn61B5YKK4cFYS+ZKGaB xOcXXgIZ/5Na70=; b=H1koWTEjFeJSq8gFJX7HN1rginstMAMTcDh0cx91+82a6 bHZWOUdZ1jtrEariEVlRv9qrRypXJvvFEvd7TvjBrbwkK0ui0Y49R0sEpDxfyGdT uKCWN2qtYGDQ3ZwdvfvZ0T+as9cXnOAWc8qwXbcUIhcZzfWbghr2z3jCcdeHtb6S pvVzDxgxNDKjez1Bl2gOZlWN/T0DLP4mJFwctBFG/kpiyDbFs7nVNZ/DnMRpU3zR 09kUxeSFqFeYcgXbT1NJL8dytPcNbCZ/zxUNvm6olDx/PBg+mqUbBKt2ebyIWUGH ibyp2MSBQoPmZf8uaNFxw7Ah0UeNLeblwSr/YCQIg== X-ME-Sender: Received: from yliu-home (unknown [222.64.173.197]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 80BE37F988; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 07:25:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:24:57 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Maxime Coquelin Cc: "Kavanagh, Mark B" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Horton, Remy" , "Bie, Tiwei" , "mst@redhat.com" , "jfreiman@redhat.com" , "vkaplans@redhat.com" , "jasowang@redhat.com" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Loftus, Ciara" , "Stokes, Ian" , Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20171106122457.GG12931@yliu-home> References: <20171005083627.27828-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> <20171005083627.27828-2-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> <20171103130510.GB12931@yliu-home> <20171106120043.GE12931@yliu-home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 01/19] Revert "vhost: workaround MQ fails to startup" 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 12:25:05 -0000 On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 01:07:15PM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > > On 11/06/2017 01:00 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 03:28:36PM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 11/03/2017 02:05 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > >>>On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 10:40:26AM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > >>>>>Moving from QEMU v2.7.0 to v2.10.0 resolves the issue. However, herein lies the issue: QEMU v2.10.0 was only released in August of this year; anecdotally, we know that many OvS-DPDK customers use older versions of QEMU (typically, v2.7.0), and are likely un[able|willing] to move. With this patch, a hard dependency on QEMU v2.10 is created for users who want to use the vHU multiq feature in DPDK v17.11 (and subsequently, the upcoming OvS v2.9.0), which IMO will likely be unacceptable for many. > >>>> > >>>>Do you mean that upstream Qemu v2.7.0 is used in production? > >>>>I would expect the customers to use a distro Qemu which should contain > >>>>relevant fixes, or follow upstream's stable branches. > >>>> > >>>>FYI, Qemu v2.9.1 contains a backport of the fix. > >>>> > >>>>>One potential solution to this problem is to introduce a compile-time option that would allow the user to [dis|en]able the VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK feature - is that something that would be acceptable to you Maxime? > >>>> > >>>>Yes, that's one option, but: > >>>>1. VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK enabled should be the default > >>>>2. VHOST_USER_PROTOCOL_F_REPLY_ACK disabled will be less extensively > >>>>tested. > >>>> > >>>>Yuanhan, what do you think? > >>> > >>>My suggestion is to still disable it by default. Qemu 2.7 - 2.9 (inclusive) > >>>is a pretty big range, that I think quite many people would hit this issue > >>Ok, then what about adding a new flag to rte_vhost_driver_register(), as > >>done for tx zero copy to enable IOMMU feature? > >>If flag is unset, then we mask out both IOMMU virtio feature flag and > >>REPLY_ACK protocol feature flag. > >> > >>For a while this flag will be unset by default, not to break these > >>deprecated and unmaintained Qemu versions. But I think at some point > >>we should make it enabled by default, as it would be sad not to benefit > >>from this security feature. > > > >This sounds good to me. > > Actually, I have posted a different patch, so that we don't have API > change for this. Upstream OVS can disable IOMMU feature, which will in > turn disable REPLY-ACK protocol feature if they want to. Sorry I missed that. So the REPLY-ACK will still be enabled by default and you leave the choice to the users to disable it, explicitly? This doesn't sound the best to me. We now know that it breaks OVS, but other users may hit the same issue again without any awareness. Also, I know this feature brings good benefits on security. But IIRC, you mentioned that it became barely un-usable with Linux kernel virtio-net driver. >>From the two points, I think let's make it be disable by default now? --yliu