Re: [net-next v2 1/1] virtual-bus: Implementation of Virtual Bus

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 07:10:23PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 04:33:40PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 03:15:47PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 01:58:42PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:46:32PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > As always, this is all very hard to tell without actually seeing real
> > > > > accelerated drivers implement this. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your patch series might be a bit premature in this regard.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually drivers implementing this have been posted, haven't they?
> > > > See e.g. https://lwn.net/Articles/804379/
> > > 
> > > Is that a real driver? It looks like another example quality
> > > thing. 
> > > 
> > > For instance why do we need any of this if it has '#define
> > > IFCVF_MDEV_LIMIT 1' ?
> > > 
> > > Surely for this HW just use vfio over the entire PCI function and be
> > > done with it?
> > 
> > What this does is allow using it with unmodified virtio drivers
> > within guests.  You won't get this with passthrough as it only
> > implements parts of virtio in hardware.
> 
> I don't mean use vfio to perform passthrough, I mean to use vfio to
> implement the software parts in userspace while vfio to talk to the
> hardware.

You repeated vfio twice here, hard to decode what you meant actually.

>   kernel -> vfio -> user space virtio driver -> qemu -> guest

Exactly what has been implemented for control path.
The interface between vfio and userspace is
based on virtio which is IMHO much better than
a vendor specific one. userspace stays vendor agnostic.

> Generally we don't want to see things in the kernel that can be done
> in userspace, and to me, at least for this driver, this looks
> completely solvable in userspace.

I don't think that extends as far as actively encouraging userspace
drivers poking at hardware in a vendor specific way.  That has lots of
security and portability implications and isn't appropriate for
everyone. It is kernel's job to abstract hardware away and present
a unified interface as far as possible.

-- 
MST