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

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:45:38PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/11/21 下午10:17, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:21:29PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > The role of vfio has traditionally been around secure device
> > > > assignment of a HW resource to a VM. I'm not totally clear on what the
> > > > role if mdev is seen to be, but all the mdev drivers in the tree seem
> > > > to make 'and pass it to KVM' a big part of their description.
> > > > 
> > > > So, looking at the virtio patches, I see some intended use is to map
> > > > some BAR pages into the VM.
> > > Nope, at least not for the current stage. It still depends on the
> > > virtio-net-pci emulatio in qemu to work. In the future, we will allow such
> > > mapping only for dorbell.
> > There has been a lot of emails today, but I think this is the main
> > point I want to respond to.
> > 
> > Using vfio when you don't even assign any part of the device BAR to
> > the VM is, frankly, a gigantic misuse, IMHO.
> 
> That's not a compelling point. 

Well, this discussion is going nowhere.

> > Just needing userspace DMA is not, in any way, a justification to use
> > vfio.
> > 
> > We have extensive library interfaces in the kernel to do userspace DMA
> > and subsystems like GPU and RDMA are full of example uses of this kind
> > of stuff.
> 
> I'm not sure which library did you mean here. Is any of those library used
> by qemu? If not, what's the reason?

I mean the library functions in the kernel that vfio uses to implement
all the user dma stuff. Other subsystems use them too, it is not
exclusive to vfio.

> > Further, I do not think it is wise to design the userspace ABI around
> > a simplistict implementation that can't do BAR assignment,
> 
> Again, the vhost-mdev follow the VFIO ABI, no new ABI is invented, and
> mmap() was kept their for mapping device regions.

The patches have a new file in include/uapi.

Everything in include/api is considered new user ABI.

> > My advice is to proceed as a proper subsystem with your own chardev,
> > own bus type, etc and maybe live in staging for a bit until 2-3
> > drivers are implementing the ABI (or at the very least agreeing with),
> > as is the typical process for Linux.
> 
> I'm open to comments for sure, but looking at all the requirement for vDPA,
> most of the requirement could be settled through existed modules, that's not
> only a simplification for developing but also for management layer or
> userspace drivers.

We've already got disagreement that the GUID based mdev approach is
desirable for management.

Performing userspace DMA from a kernel driver is absolutely not a
reason to use VFIO.

Is there any technical justification?

Jason