Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] vfio/pci: Add VFIO_DEVICE_GET_PCI_HOT_RESET_GROUP_INFO

Alex Williamson
2023-03-28T15:22:00Z

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 15:00:42 +0000
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com> wrote:

> > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 10:46 PM
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 14:38:12 +0000
> > "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 10:26 PM
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:19:06 +0000
> > > > "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > From: Liu, Yi L <yi.l.liu@intel.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:32 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 3:26 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Additionally, VFIO_DEVICE_GET_PCI_HOT_RESET_INFO has a flags
> > arg
> > > > that
> > > > > > > isn't used, why do we need a new ioctl vs defining
> > > > > > > VFIO_PCI_HOT_RESET_FLAG_IOMMUFD_DEV_ID.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure. I can follow this suggestion. BTW. I have a doubt here. This
> > new
> > > > flag
> > > > > > is set by user. What if in the future kernel has new extensions and
> > needs
> > > > > > to report something new to the user and add new flags to tell user?
> > Such
> > > > > > flag is set by kernel. Then the flags field may have two kinds of flags
> > > > (some
> > > > > > set by user while some set by kernel). Will it mess up the flags space?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > flags in a GET_INFO ioctl is for output.
> > > > >
> > > > > if user needs to use flags as input to select different type of info then it
> > > > should
> > > > > be split into multiple GET_INFO cmds.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know that that's actually a rule, however we don't currently
> > > > test flags is zero for input, so in this case I think we are stuck with
> > > > it only being for output.
> > > >
> > > > Alternatively, should VFIO_DEVICE_GET_PCI_HOT_RESET_INFO
> > > > automatically
> > > > return the dev_id variant of the output and set a flag to indicate this
> > > > is the case when called on a device fd opened as a cdev? Thanks,
> > >
> > > Personally I prefer that user asks for dev_id info explicitly. The major
> > reason
> > > that we return dev_id is that the group/bdf info is not enough for the
> > device
> > > fd passing case. But if qemu opens device by itself, the group/bdf info is
> > still
> > > enough. So a device opened as a cdev doesn't mean it should return
> > dev_id,
> > > it depends on if user has the bdf knowledge.
> >
> > But if QEMU opens the cdev, vs getting it from the group, does it make
> > any sense to return a set of group-ids + bdf in the host-reset info?
> > I'm inclined to think the answer is no.
> >
> > Per my previous suggestion, I think we should always return the bdf. We
> > can't know if the user is accessing through an fd they opened
> > themselves or were passed,
>
> Oh, yes. I'm convinced by this reason since only cdev mode supports device fd
> passing. So I'll reuse the existing _INFO and let kernel set a flag to mark the returned
> info is dev_id+bdf.
>
> A check. If the device that the _INFIO is invoked is opened via cdev, but there
> are devices in the dev_set that are got via VFIO_GROUP_GET_DEVICE_FD, should
> I fail it or allow it?

It's a niche case, but I think it needs to be allowed. We'd still
report the bdf for those devices, but make use of the invalid/null
dev-id. I think this empowers userspace that they could make the same
call on a group opened fd if necessary. An alternative would be to
redefine the returned data structure entirely with a flag per entry
describing the output, but then I think we need to invent a kernel
policy of which gets reported, which seems overly complicated if our
goal is to phase out group usage. Make sense, or will this bite us?
Thanks,

Alex