Re: [PATCH v3 12/12] vfio/pci: Report dev_id in VFIO_DEVICE_GET_PCI_HOT_RESET_INFO

Alex Williamson
2023-04-12T16:56:53Z

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 10:09:32 +0000
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com> wrote:

> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 8:01 AM
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 03:58:27PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > > Management tools already need to understand dev_set if they want to
> > > > offer reliable reset support to the VMs. Same as today.
> > >
> > > I don't think that's true. Our primary hot-reset use case is GPUs and
> > > subordinate functions, where the isolation and reset scope are often
> > > sufficiently similar to make hot-reset possible, regardless whether
> > > all the functions are assigned to a VM. I don't think you'll find any
> > > management tools that takes reset scope into account otherwise.
> >
> > When I think of "reliable reset support" I think of the management
> > tool offering a checkbox that says "ensure PCI function reset
> > availability" and if checked it will not launch the VM without a
> > working reset.
> >
> > If the user configures a set of VFIO devices and then hopes they get
> > working reset, that is fine, but doesn't require any reporting of
> > reset groups, or iommu groups to the management layer to work.
> >
> > > > > As I understand the proposal, QEMU now gets to attempt to
> > > > > claim ownership of the dev_set, so it opportunistically extends its
> > > > > ownership and may block other users from the affected devices.
> > > >
> > > > We can decide the policy for the kernel to accept a claim. I suggested
> > > > below "same as today" - it must hold all the groups within the
> > > > iommufd_ctx.
> > >
> > > It must hold all the groups [that the user doesn't know about because
> > > it's not a formal part of the cdev API] within the iommufd_ctx?
> >
> > You keep going back to this, but I maintain userspace doesn't
> > care. qemu is given a list of VFIO devices to use, all it wants to
> > know is if it is allowed to use reset or not. Why should it need to
> > know groups and group_ids to get that binary signal out of the kernel?
> >
> > > > The simplest option for no-iommu is to require it to pass in every
> > > > device fd to the reset ioctl.
> > >
> > > Which ironically is exactly how it ends up working today, each no-iommu
> > > device has a fake IOMMU group, so every affected device (group) needs
> > > to be provided.
> >
> > Sure, that is probably the way forward for no-iommu. Not that anyone
> > uses it..
> >
> > The kicker is we don't force the user to generate a de-duplicated list
> > of devices FDs, one per group, just because.
> >
> > > > I want to re-focus on the basics of what cdev is supposed to be doing,
> > > > because several of the idea you suggested seem against this direction:
> > > >
> > > > - cdev does not have, and cannot rely on vfio_groups. We enforce this
> > > > by compiling all the vfio_group infrastructure out. iommu_groups
> > > > continue to exist.
> > > >
> > > > So converting a cdev to a vfio_group is not an allowed operation.
> > >
> > > My only statements in this respect were towards the notion that IOMMU
> > > groups continue to exist. I'm well aware of the desire to deprecate
> > > and remove vfio groups.
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > > > - no-iommu should not have iommu_groups. We enforce this by compiling
> > > > out all the no-iommu vfio_group infrastructure.
> > >
> > > This is not logically inferred from the above if IOMMU groups continue
> > > to exist and continue to be a basis for describing DMA ownership as
> > > well as "reset groups"
> >
> > It is not ment to flow out of the above, it is a seperate statement. I
> > want the iommu_group mechanism to stop being abused outside the iommu
> > core code. The only thing that should be creating groups is an
> > attached iommu driver operating under ops->device_group().
> >
> > VFIO needed this to support mdev and no-iommu. We already have mdev
> > free of iommu_groups, I would like no-iommu to also be free of it too,
> > we are very close.
> >
> > That would leave POWER as the only abuser of the
> > iommu_group_add_device() API, and it is only doing it because it
> > hasn't got a proper iommu driver implementation yet. It turns out
> > their abuse is mislocked and maybe racy to boot :(
> >
> > > > - cdev APIs should ideally not require the user to know the group_id,
> > > > we should try hard to design APIs to avoid this.
> > >
> > > This is a nuance, group_id vs group, where it's been previously
> > > discussed that users will need to continue to know the boundaries of a
> > > group for the purpose of DMA isolation and potentially IOAS
> > > independence should cdev/iommufd choose to tackle those topics.
> >
> > Yes, group_id is a value we have no specific use for and would require
> > userspace to keep seperate track of. I'd prefer to rely on dev_id as
> > much as possible instead.
> >
> > > What is the actual proposal here?
> >
> > I don't know anymore, you don't seem to like this direction either...
> >
> > > You've said that hot-reset works if the iommufd_ctx has
> > > representation from each affected group, the INFO ioctl remains as
> > > it is, which suggests that it's reporting group ID and BDF, yet only
> > > sysfs tells the user the relation between a vfio cdev and a group
> > > and we're trying to enable a pass-by-fd model for cdev where the
> > > user has no reference to a sysfs node for the device. Show me how
> > > these pieces fit together.
> >
> > I prefer the version where INFO2 returns the dev_id, but info can work
> > if we do the BDF cap like you suggested to Yi
> >
> > > OTOH, if we say IOMMU groups continue to exist [agreed], every vfio
> > > device has an IOMMU group
> >
> > I don't desire every VFIO device to have an iommu_group. I want VFIO
> > devices with real IOMMU drivers to have an iommu_group. mdev and
> > no-iommu should not. I don't want to add them back into the design
> > just so INFO has a value to return.
> >
> > I'd rather give no-iommu a dummy dev_id in iommufdctx then give it an
> > iommu_group...
> >
> > I see this problem as a few basic requirements from a qemu-like
> > application:
> >
> > 1) Does the configuration I was given support reset right now?
> > 2) Will the configuration I was given support reset for the duration
> > of my execution?
> > 3) What groups of the devices I already have open does the reset
> > effect?
> > 4) For debugging, report to the user the full list of devices in the
> > reset group, in a way that relates back to sysfs.
> > 5) Away to trigger a reset on a group of devices
> >
> > #1/#2 is the API I suggested here. Ask the kernel if the current
> > configuration works, and ask it to keep it working.
> >
> > #3 is either INFO and a CAP for BDF or INFO2 reporting dev_id
> >
> > #4 is either INFO and print the BDFs or INFO2 reporting the struct
> > vfio_device IDR # (eg /sys/class/vfio/vfioXXX/).
>
> I hope we can have a clear statement on the _INFO or INFO2 usage.
> Today, per QEMU's implementation, the output of _INFO is used to:
>
> 1) do a self-check to see if all the affected groups are opened by the
> current user before it can invoke hot-reset.
> 2) figure out the devices that are already opened by the user. QEMU
> needs to save the state of such devices as the device may already
> been in use. If so, its state should be saved and restored prior/post
> the hot-reset.
>
> Seems like we are relaxing the self-check as it may be done by locking
> the reset group. is it?

I hope not. Locking the reset group suggests the user is able to
extend their ownership. IMO we should not allow that. Thanks,

Alex