| Message ID | 158213716959.17090.8399427017403507114.stgit@gimli.home (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | vfio/pci: SR-IOV support | expand |
> From: Alex Williamson > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:54 AM > > Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is > rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on > upstream discussions. The primary user visible difference is that > option parsing is now much more strict. If a vf_token option is > provided that cannot be used, we generate an error. As a result of > this, opening a PF with a vf_token option will serve as a mechanism of > setting the vf_token. This seems like a more user friendly API than > the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs in use) and > sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is > always either used or rejected. > > This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only > means of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether > we absolutely need this new ioctl. Currently I'm keeping it because I > can imagine use cases, for example if a hypervisor were to support > SR-IOV, the PF device might be opened without consideration for a VF > token and we'd require the hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in > order to set a known VF token, which is impractical. > > Series overview (same as provided with v1): Thanks for doing this! > > The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive > PCIe SR-IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO. There's an immediate need > for this with DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use Can you provide a link to the DPDK discussion? > cases in virtualization. We've been reluctant to add this support > previously due to the dependency and trust relationship between the > VF device and PF driver. Minimally the PF driver can induce a denial > of service to the VF, but depending on the specific implementation, > the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data between VFs > or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or state > otherwise private to the VF or VF driver. Just a loud thinking. While the motivation of VF token sounds reasonable to me, I'm curious why the same concern is not raised in other usages. For example, there is no such design in virtio framework, where the virtio device could also be restarted, putting in separate process (vhost-user), and even in separate VM (virtio-vhost-user), etc. Of course the para- virtualized attribute of virtio implies some degree of trust, but as you mentioned many SR-IOV implementations support VF->PF communication which also implies some level of trust. It's perfectly fine if VFIO just tries to do better than other sub-systems, but knowing how other people tackle the similar problem may make the whole picture clearer.
On 2020/2/25 上午10:33, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> From: Alex Williamson >> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:54 AM >> >> Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is >> rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on >> upstream discussions. The primary user visible difference is that >> option parsing is now much more strict. If a vf_token option is >> provided that cannot be used, we generate an error. As a result of >> this, opening a PF with a vf_token option will serve as a mechanism of >> setting the vf_token. This seems like a more user friendly API than >> the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs in use) and >> sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is >> always either used or rejected. >> >> This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only >> means of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether >> we absolutely need this new ioctl. Currently I'm keeping it because I >> can imagine use cases, for example if a hypervisor were to support >> SR-IOV, the PF device might be opened without consideration for a VF >> token and we'd require the hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in >> order to set a known VF token, which is impractical. >> >> Series overview (same as provided with v1): > Thanks for doing this! > >> The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive >> PCIe SR-IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO. There's an immediate need >> for this with DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use > Can you provide a link to the DPDK discussion? > >> cases in virtualization. We've been reluctant to add this support >> previously due to the dependency and trust relationship between the >> VF device and PF driver. Minimally the PF driver can induce a denial >> of service to the VF, but depending on the specific implementation, >> the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data between VFs >> or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or state >> otherwise private to the VF or VF driver. > Just a loud thinking. While the motivation of VF token sounds reasonable > to me, I'm curious why the same concern is not raised in other usages. > For example, there is no such design in virtio framework, where the > virtio device could also be restarted, putting in separate process (vhost-user), > and even in separate VM (virtio-vhost-user), etc. AFAIK, the restart could only be triggered by either VM or qemu. But yes, the datapath could be offloaded. But I'm not sure introducing another dedicated mechanism is better than using the exist generic POSIX mechanism to make sure the connection (AF_UINX) is secure. > Of course the para- > virtualized attribute of virtio implies some degree of trust, but as you > mentioned many SR-IOV implementations support VF->PF communication > which also implies some level of trust. It's perfectly fine if VFIO just tries > to do better than other sub-systems, but knowing how other people > tackle the similar problem may make the whole picture clearer.
> -----Original Message----- > From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Alex Williamson > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:24 AM > To: kvm@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; dev@dpdk.org; > mtosatti@redhat.com; thomas@monjalon.net; bluca@debian.org; > jerinjacobk@gmail.com; bruce.richardson@intel.com; cohuck@redhat.com > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/7] vfio/pci: SR-IOV support > > Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is > rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on upstream > discussions. The primary user visible difference is that option parsing is now > much more strict. If a vf_token option is provided that cannot be used, we > generate an error. As a result of this, opening a PF with a vf_token option > will serve as a mechanism of setting the vf_token. This seems like a more > user friendly API than the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs > in use) and sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is > always either used or rejected. > > This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only means > of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether we absolutely > need this new ioctl. Currently I'm keeping it because I can imagine use cases, > for example if a hypervisor were to support SR-IOV, the PF device might be > opened without consideration for a VF token and we'd require the > hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in order to set a known VF token, > which is impractical. > > Series overview (same as provided with v1): > > The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive PCIe SR- > IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO. There's an immediate need for this with > DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use cases in virtualization. > We've been reluctant to add this support previously due to the dependency > and trust relationship between the VF device and PF driver. Minimally the PF > driver can induce a denial of service to the VF, but depending on the specific > implementation, the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data > between VFs or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or > state otherwise private to the VF or VF driver. > > To help resolve these concerns, we introduce a VF token into the VFIO PCI > ABI, which acts as a shared secret key between drivers. The userspace PF > driver is required to set the VF token to a known value and userspace VF > drivers are required to provide the token to access the VF device. If a PF > driver is restarted with VF drivers in use, it must also provide the current > token in order to prevent a rogue untrusted PF driver from replacing a known > driver. The degree to which this new token is considered secret is left to the > userspace drivers, the kernel intentionally provides no means to retrieve the > current token. > > Note that the above token is only required for this new model where both > the PF and VF devices are usable through vfio-pci. Existing models of VFIO > drivers where the PF is used without SR-IOV enabled or the VF is bound to a > userspace driver with an in-kernel, host PF driver are unaffected. > > The latter configuration above also highlights a new inverted scenario that is > now possible, a userspace PF driver with in-kernel VF drivers. > I believe this is a scenario that should be allowed, but should not be enabled > by default. This series includes code to set a default driver_override for VFs > sourced from a vfio-pci user owned PF, such that the VFs are also bound to > vfio-pci. This model is compatible with tools like driverctl and allows the > system administrator to decide if other bindings should be enabled. The VF > token interface above exists only between vfio-pci PF and VF drivers, once a > VF is bound to another driver, the administrator has effectively pronounced > the device as trusted. The vfio-pci driver will note alternate binding in dmesg > for logging and debugging purposes. > > Please review, comment, and test. The example QEMU implementation > provided with the RFC is still current for this version. Thanks, > > Alex Hi Alex, Thanks for enabling this feature support. Tested-by: Vamsi Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com> Tested v2 patch set with below DPDK patch. http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/66281/ Regards A Vamsi > > RFC: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__lore.kernel.org_lkml_158085337582.9445.17682266437583505502.stgit- > 40gimli.home_&d=DwICaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=2rpxxNF2qeP0 > 2gVZIWTVrW-6zNZz5-uKt9pRqpR_M3U&m=V-6mKmCTHPZa5jwepXU_- > Ma1_BGF0OWJ_IRCF_p4GVo&s=YnO98PGK9ro7F6_XZTccHdYcZ- > rMMOin0nRFhPD6Uv4&e= > v1: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__lore.kernel.org_lkml_158145472604.16827.15751375540102298130.stgit > - > 40gimli.home_&d=DwICaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=2rpxxNF2qeP0 > 2gVZIWTVrW-6zNZz5-uKt9pRqpR_M3U&m=V-6mKmCTHPZa5jwepXU_- > Ma1_BGF0OWJ_IRCF_p4GVo&s=rvUxLCENwNk0GBYkcsBVVobsLfMb4BV5gtc > 3VqYQTS4&e= > > --- > > Alex Williamson (7): > vfio: Include optional device match in vfio_device_ops callbacks > vfio/pci: Implement match ops > vfio/pci: Introduce VF token > vfio: Introduce VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl and first user > vfio/pci: Add sriov_configure support > vfio/pci: Remove dev_fmt definition > vfio/pci: Cleanup .probe() exit paths > > > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 383 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 10 + > drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 20 +- > include/linux/vfio.h | 4 > include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 37 +++ > 5 files changed, 426 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:09:07 +0800 Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2020/2/25 上午10:33, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >> From: Alex Williamson > >> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:54 AM > >> > >> Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is > >> rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on > >> upstream discussions. The primary user visible difference is that > >> option parsing is now much more strict. If a vf_token option is > >> provided that cannot be used, we generate an error. As a result of > >> this, opening a PF with a vf_token option will serve as a mechanism of > >> setting the vf_token. This seems like a more user friendly API than > >> the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs in use) and > >> sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is > >> always either used or rejected. > >> > >> This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only > >> means of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether > >> we absolutely need this new ioctl. Currently I'm keeping it because I > >> can imagine use cases, for example if a hypervisor were to support > >> SR-IOV, the PF device might be opened without consideration for a VF > >> token and we'd require the hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in > >> order to set a known VF token, which is impractical. > >> > >> Series overview (same as provided with v1): > > Thanks for doing this! > > > >> The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive > >> PCIe SR-IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO. There's an immediate need > >> for this with DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use > > Can you provide a link to the DPDK discussion? > > > >> cases in virtualization. We've been reluctant to add this support > >> previously due to the dependency and trust relationship between the > >> VF device and PF driver. Minimally the PF driver can induce a denial > >> of service to the VF, but depending on the specific implementation, > >> the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data between VFs > >> or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or state > >> otherwise private to the VF or VF driver. > > Just a loud thinking. While the motivation of VF token sounds reasonable > > to me, I'm curious why the same concern is not raised in other usages. > > For example, there is no such design in virtio framework, where the > > virtio device could also be restarted, putting in separate process (vhost-user), > > and even in separate VM (virtio-vhost-user), etc. > > > AFAIK, the restart could only be triggered by either VM or qemu. But > yes, the datapath could be offloaded. > > But I'm not sure introducing another dedicated mechanism is better than > using the exist generic POSIX mechanism to make sure the connection > (AF_UINX) is secure. > > > > Of course the para- > > virtualized attribute of virtio implies some degree of trust, but as you > > mentioned many SR-IOV implementations support VF->PF communication > > which also implies some level of trust. It's perfectly fine if VFIO just tries > > to do better than other sub-systems, but knowing how other people > > tackle the similar problem may make the whole picture clearer.
Hi Kevin, Sorry for the delay, I've been out on PTO... On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:33:27 +0000 "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote: > > From: Alex Williamson > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:54 AM > > > > Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is > > rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on > > upstream discussions. The primary user visible difference is that > > option parsing is now much more strict. If a vf_token option is > > provided that cannot be used, we generate an error. As a result of > > this, opening a PF with a vf_token option will serve as a mechanism of > > setting the vf_token. This seems like a more user friendly API than > > the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs in use) and > > sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is > > always either used or rejected. > > > > This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only > > means of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether > > we absolutely need this new ioctl. Currently I'm keeping it because I > > can imagine use cases, for example if a hypervisor were to support > > SR-IOV, the PF device might be opened without consideration for a VF > > token and we'd require the hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in > > order to set a known VF token, which is impractical. > > > > Series overview (same as provided with v1): > > Thanks for doing this! > > > > > The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive > > PCIe SR-IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO. There's an immediate need > > for this with DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use > > Can you provide a link to the DPDK discussion? There's a thread here which proposed an out-of-tree driver that enables a parallel sr-iov enabling interface for a vfio-pci own device. Clearly I felt strongly about it ;) https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/58810/ Also, documentation for making use of an Intel FPGA device with DPDK requires the PF bound to igb_uio to support enabling SR-IOV: https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/bbdevs/fpga_lte_fec.html > > cases in virtualization. We've been reluctant to add this support > > previously due to the dependency and trust relationship between the > > VF device and PF driver. Minimally the PF driver can induce a denial > > of service to the VF, but depending on the specific implementation, > > the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data between VFs > > or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or state > > otherwise private to the VF or VF driver. > > Just a loud thinking. While the motivation of VF token sounds reasonable > to me, I'm curious why the same concern is not raised in other usages. > For example, there is no such design in virtio framework, where the > virtio device could also be restarted, putting in separate process (vhost-user), > and even in separate VM (virtio-vhost-user), etc. Of course the para- > virtualized attribute of virtio implies some degree of trust, but as you > mentioned many SR-IOV implementations support VF->PF communication > which also implies some level of trust. It's perfectly fine if VFIO just tries > to do better than other sub-systems, but knowing how other people > tackle the similar problem may make the whole picture clearer.
On 2020/3/6 上午1:14, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:09:07 +0800 > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 2020/2/25 上午10:33, Tian, Kevin wrote: >>>> From: Alex Williamson >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:54 AM >>>> >>>> Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is >>>> rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on >>>> upstream discussions. The primary user visible difference is that >>>> option parsing is now much more strict. If a vf_token option is >>>> provided that cannot be used, we generate an error. As a result of >>>> this, opening a PF with a vf_token option will serve as a mechanism of >>>> setting the vf_token. This seems like a more user friendly API than >>>> the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs in use) and >>>> sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is >>>> always either used or rejected. >>>> >>>> This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only >>>> means of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether >>>> we absolutely need this new ioctl. Currently I'm keeping it because I >>>> can imagine use cases, for example if a hypervisor were to support >>>> SR-IOV, the PF device might be opened without consideration for a VF >>>> token and we'd require the hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in >>>> order to set a known VF token, which is impractical. >>>> >>>> Series overview (same as provided with v1): >>> Thanks for doing this! >>> >>>> The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive >>>> PCIe SR-IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO. There's an immediate need >>>> for this with DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use >>> Can you provide a link to the DPDK discussion? >>> >>>> cases in virtualization. We've been reluctant to add this support >>>> previously due to the dependency and trust relationship between the >>>> VF device and PF driver. Minimally the PF driver can induce a denial >>>> of service to the VF, but depending on the specific implementation, >>>> the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data between VFs >>>> or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or state >>>> otherwise private to the VF or VF driver. >>> Just a loud thinking. While the motivation of VF token sounds reasonable >>> to me, I'm curious why the same concern is not raised in other usages. >>> For example, there is no such design in virtio framework, where the >>> virtio device could also be restarted, putting in separate process (vhost-user), >>> and even in separate VM (virtio-vhost-user), etc. >> >> AFAIK, the restart could only be triggered by either VM or qemu. But >> yes, the datapath could be offloaded. >> >> But I'm not sure introducing another dedicated mechanism is better than >> using the exist generic POSIX mechanism to make sure the connection >> (AF_UINX) is secure. >> >> >>> Of course the para- >>> virtualized attribute of virtio implies some degree of trust, but as you >>> mentioned many SR-IOV implementations support VF->PF communication >>> which also implies some level of trust. It's perfectly fine if VFIO just tries >>> to do better than other sub-systems, but knowing how other people >>> tackle the similar problem may make the whole picture clearer.
> From: Alex Williamson > Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 1:34 AM > > Hi Kevin, > > Sorry for the delay, I've been out on PTO... > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:33:27 +0000 > "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote: > > > > From: Alex Williamson > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:54 AM > > > > > > Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is > > > rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on > > > upstream discussions. The primary user visible difference is that > > > option parsing is now much more strict. If a vf_token option is > > > provided that cannot be used, we generate an error. As a result of > > > this, opening a PF with a vf_token option will serve as a mechanism of > > > setting the vf_token. This seems like a more user friendly API than > > > the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs in use) and > > > sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is > > > always either used or rejected. > > > > > > This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only > > > means of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether > > > we absolutely need this new ioctl. Currently I'm keeping it because I > > > can imagine use cases, for example if a hypervisor were to support > > > SR-IOV, the PF device might be opened without consideration for a VF > > > token and we'd require the hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in > > > order to set a known VF token, which is impractical. > > > > > > Series overview (same as provided with v1): > > > > Thanks for doing this! > > > > > > > > The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive > > > PCIe SR-IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO. There's an immediate need > > > for this with DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use > > > > Can you provide a link to the DPDK discussion? > > There's a thread here which proposed an out-of-tree driver that enables > a parallel sr-iov enabling interface for a vfio-pci own device. > Clearly I felt strongly about it ;) > > https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/58810/ > > Also, documentation for making use of an Intel FPGA device with DPDK > requires the PF bound to igb_uio to support enabling SR-IOV: > > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/bbdevs/fpga_lte_fec.html thanks. it is useful. > > > > cases in virtualization. We've been reluctant to add this support > > > previously due to the dependency and trust relationship between the > > > VF device and PF driver. Minimally the PF driver can induce a denial > > > of service to the VF, but depending on the specific implementation, > > > the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data between VFs > > > or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or state > > > otherwise private to the VF or VF driver. > > > > Just a loud thinking. While the motivation of VF token sounds reasonable > > to me, I'm curious why the same concern is not raised in other usages. > > For example, there is no such design in virtio framework, where the > > virtio device could also be restarted, putting in separate process (vhost- > user), > > and even in separate VM (virtio-vhost-user), etc. Of course the para- > > virtualized attribute of virtio implies some degree of trust, but as you > > mentioned many SR-IOV implementations support VF->PF communication > > which also implies some level of trust. It's perfectly fine if VFIO just tries > > to do better than other sub-systems, but knowing how other people > > tackle the similar problem may make the whole picture clearer.
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:35:21 +0800 Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2020/3/6 上午1:14, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:09:07 +0800 > > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On 2020/2/25 上午10:33, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >>>> From: Alex Williamson > >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:54 AM > >>>> > >>>> Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is > >>>> rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on > >>>> upstream discussions. The primary user visible difference is that > >>>> option parsing is now much more strict. If a vf_token option is > >>>> provided that cannot be used, we generate an error. As a result of > >>>> this, opening a PF with a vf_token option will serve as a mechanism of > >>>> setting the vf_token. This seems like a more user friendly API than > >>>> the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs in use) and > >>>> sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is > >>>> always either used or rejected. > >>>> > >>>> This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only > >>>> means of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether > >>>> we absolutely need this new ioctl. Currently I'm keeping it because I > >>>> can imagine use cases, for example if a hypervisor were to support > >>>> SR-IOV, the PF device might be opened without consideration for a VF > >>>> token and we'd require the hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in > >>>> order to set a known VF token, which is impractical. > >>>> > >>>> Series overview (same as provided with v1): > >>> Thanks for doing this! > >>> > >>>> The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive > >>>> PCIe SR-IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO. There's an immediate need > >>>> for this with DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use > >>> Can you provide a link to the DPDK discussion? > >>> > >>>> cases in virtualization. We've been reluctant to add this support > >>>> previously due to the dependency and trust relationship between the > >>>> VF device and PF driver. Minimally the PF driver can induce a denial > >>>> of service to the VF, but depending on the specific implementation, > >>>> the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data between VFs > >>>> or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or state > >>>> otherwise private to the VF or VF driver. > >>> Just a loud thinking. While the motivation of VF token sounds reasonable > >>> to me, I'm curious why the same concern is not raised in other usages. > >>> For example, there is no such design in virtio framework, where the > >>> virtio device could also be restarted, putting in separate process (vhost-user), > >>> and even in separate VM (virtio-vhost-user), etc. > >> > >> AFAIK, the restart could only be triggered by either VM or qemu. But > >> yes, the datapath could be offloaded. > >> > >> But I'm not sure introducing another dedicated mechanism is better than > >> using the exist generic POSIX mechanism to make sure the connection > >> (AF_UINX) is secure. > >> > >> > >>> Of course the para- > >>> virtualized attribute of virtio implies some degree of trust, but as you > >>> mentioned many SR-IOV implementations support VF->PF communication > >>> which also implies some level of trust. It's perfectly fine if VFIO just tries > >>> to do better than other sub-systems, but knowing how other people > >>> tackle the similar problem may make the whole picture clearer.
On 2020/3/7 上午12:24, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:35:21 +0800 > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 2020/3/6 上午1:14, Alex Williamson wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:09:07 +0800 >>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2020/2/25 上午10:33, Tian, Kevin wrote: >>>>>> From: Alex Williamson >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:54 AM >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is >>>>>> rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on >>>>>> upstream discussions. The primary user visible difference is that >>>>>> option parsing is now much more strict. If a vf_token option is >>>>>> provided that cannot be used, we generate an error. As a result of >>>>>> this, opening a PF with a vf_token option will serve as a mechanism of >>>>>> setting the vf_token. This seems like a more user friendly API than >>>>>> the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs in use) and >>>>>> sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is >>>>>> always either used or rejected. >>>>>> >>>>>> This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only >>>>>> means of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether >>>>>> we absolutely need this new ioctl. Currently I'm keeping it because I >>>>>> can imagine use cases, for example if a hypervisor were to support >>>>>> SR-IOV, the PF device might be opened without consideration for a VF >>>>>> token and we'd require the hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in >>>>>> order to set a known VF token, which is impractical. >>>>>> >>>>>> Series overview (same as provided with v1): >>>>> Thanks for doing this! >>>>> >>>>>> The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive >>>>>> PCIe SR-IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO. There's an immediate need >>>>>> for this with DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use >>>>> Can you provide a link to the DPDK discussion? >>>>> >>>>>> cases in virtualization. We've been reluctant to add this support >>>>>> previously due to the dependency and trust relationship between the >>>>>> VF device and PF driver. Minimally the PF driver can induce a denial >>>>>> of service to the VF, but depending on the specific implementation, >>>>>> the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data between VFs >>>>>> or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or state >>>>>> otherwise private to the VF or VF driver. >>>>> Just a loud thinking. While the motivation of VF token sounds reasonable >>>>> to me, I'm curious why the same concern is not raised in other usages. >>>>> For example, there is no such design in virtio framework, where the >>>>> virtio device could also be restarted, putting in separate process (vhost-user), >>>>> and even in separate VM (virtio-vhost-user), etc. >>>> AFAIK, the restart could only be triggered by either VM or qemu. But >>>> yes, the datapath could be offloaded. >>>> >>>> But I'm not sure introducing another dedicated mechanism is better than >>>> using the exist generic POSIX mechanism to make sure the connection >>>> (AF_UINX) is secure. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Of course the para- >>>>> virtualized attribute of virtio implies some degree of trust, but as you >>>>> mentioned many SR-IOV implementations support VF->PF communication >>>>> which also implies some level of trust. It's perfectly fine if VFIO just tries >>>>> to do better than other sub-systems, but knowing how other people >>>>> tackle the similar problem may make the whole picture clearer.
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 11:36:46 +0800 Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: > On 2020/3/7 上午12:24, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:35:21 +0800 > > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On 2020/3/6 上午1:14, Alex Williamson wrote: > >>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:09:07 +0800 > >>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 2020/2/25 上午10:33, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >>>>>> From: Alex Williamson > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 2:54 AM > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is > >>>>>> rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on > >>>>>> upstream discussions. The primary user visible difference is that > >>>>>> option parsing is now much more strict. If a vf_token option is > >>>>>> provided that cannot be used, we generate an error. As a result of > >>>>>> this, opening a PF with a vf_token option will serve as a mechanism of > >>>>>> setting the vf_token. This seems like a more user friendly API than > >>>>>> the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs in use) and > >>>>>> sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is > >>>>>> always either used or rejected. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only > >>>>>> means of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether > >>>>>> we absolutely need this new ioctl. Currently I'm keeping it because I > >>>>>> can imagine use cases, for example if a hypervisor were to support > >>>>>> SR-IOV, the PF device might be opened without consideration for a VF > >>>>>> token and we'd require the hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in > >>>>>> order to set a known VF token, which is impractical. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Series overview (same as provided with v1): > >>>>> Thanks for doing this! > >>>>> > >>>>>> The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive > >>>>>> PCIe SR-IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO. There's an immediate need > >>>>>> for this with DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use > >>>>> Can you provide a link to the DPDK discussion? > >>>>> > >>>>>> cases in virtualization. We've been reluctant to add this support > >>>>>> previously due to the dependency and trust relationship between the > >>>>>> VF device and PF driver. Minimally the PF driver can induce a denial > >>>>>> of service to the VF, but depending on the specific implementation, > >>>>>> the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data between VFs > >>>>>> or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or state > >>>>>> otherwise private to the VF or VF driver. > >>>>> Just a loud thinking. While the motivation of VF token sounds reasonable > >>>>> to me, I'm curious why the same concern is not raised in other usages. > >>>>> For example, there is no such design in virtio framework, where the > >>>>> virtio device could also be restarted, putting in separate process (vhost-user), > >>>>> and even in separate VM (virtio-vhost-user), etc. > >>>> AFAIK, the restart could only be triggered by either VM or qemu. But > >>>> yes, the datapath could be offloaded. > >>>> > >>>> But I'm not sure introducing another dedicated mechanism is better than > >>>> using the exist generic POSIX mechanism to make sure the connection > >>>> (AF_UINX) is secure. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Of course the para- > >>>>> virtualized attribute of virtio implies some degree of trust, but as you > >>>>> mentioned many SR-IOV implementations support VF->PF communication > >>>>> which also implies some level of trust. It's perfectly fine if VFIO just tries > >>>>> to do better than other sub-systems, but knowing how other people > >>>>> tackle the similar problem may make the whole picture clearer.
Changes since v1 are primarily to patch 3/7 where the commit log is rewritten, along with option parsing and failure logging based on upstream discussions. The primary user visible difference is that option parsing is now much more strict. If a vf_token option is provided that cannot be used, we generate an error. As a result of this, opening a PF with a vf_token option will serve as a mechanism of setting the vf_token. This seems like a more user friendly API than the alternative of sometimes requiring the option (VFs in use) and sometimes rejecting it, and upholds our desire that the option is always either used or rejected. This also means that the VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl is not the only means of setting the VF token, which might call into question whether we absolutely need this new ioctl. Currently I'm keeping it because I can imagine use cases, for example if a hypervisor were to support SR-IOV, the PF device might be opened without consideration for a VF token and we'd require the hypservisor to close and re-open the PF in order to set a known VF token, which is impractical. Series overview (same as provided with v1): The synopsis of this series is that we have an ongoing desire to drive PCIe SR-IOV PFs from userspace with VFIO. There's an immediate need for this with DPDK drivers and potentially interesting future use cases in virtualization. We've been reluctant to add this support previously due to the dependency and trust relationship between the VF device and PF driver. Minimally the PF driver can induce a denial of service to the VF, but depending on the specific implementation, the PF driver might also be responsible for moving data between VFs or have direct access to the state of the VF, including data or state otherwise private to the VF or VF driver. To help resolve these concerns, we introduce a VF token into the VFIO PCI ABI, which acts as a shared secret key between drivers. The userspace PF driver is required to set the VF token to a known value and userspace VF drivers are required to provide the token to access the VF device. If a PF driver is restarted with VF drivers in use, it must also provide the current token in order to prevent a rogue untrusted PF driver from replacing a known driver. The degree to which this new token is considered secret is left to the userspace drivers, the kernel intentionally provides no means to retrieve the current token. Note that the above token is only required for this new model where both the PF and VF devices are usable through vfio-pci. Existing models of VFIO drivers where the PF is used without SR-IOV enabled or the VF is bound to a userspace driver with an in-kernel, host PF driver are unaffected. The latter configuration above also highlights a new inverted scenario that is now possible, a userspace PF driver with in-kernel VF drivers. I believe this is a scenario that should be allowed, but should not be enabled by default. This series includes code to set a default driver_override for VFs sourced from a vfio-pci user owned PF, such that the VFs are also bound to vfio-pci. This model is compatible with tools like driverctl and allows the system administrator to decide if other bindings should be enabled. The VF token interface above exists only between vfio-pci PF and VF drivers, once a VF is bound to another driver, the administrator has effectively pronounced the device as trusted. The vfio-pci driver will note alternate binding in dmesg for logging and debugging purposes. Please review, comment, and test. The example QEMU implementation provided with the RFC is still current for this version. Thanks, Alex RFC: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/158085337582.9445.17682266437583505502.stgit@gimli.home/ v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/158145472604.16827.15751375540102298130.stgit@gimli.home/ --- Alex Williamson (7): vfio: Include optional device match in vfio_device_ops callbacks vfio/pci: Implement match ops vfio/pci: Introduce VF token vfio: Introduce VFIO_DEVICE_FEATURE ioctl and first user vfio/pci: Add sriov_configure support vfio/pci: Remove dev_fmt definition vfio/pci: Cleanup .probe() exit paths drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c | 383 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 10 + drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 20 +- include/linux/vfio.h | 4 include/uapi/linux/vfio.h | 37 +++ 5 files changed, 426 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)