Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework

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

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 02:38:57PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:44:39PM -0700, Siwei Liu wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:44:40AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:24:56 +0300
> >> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:04:06AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >I will NAK patches to change to common code for netvsc especially the
> >> >> > > > >three device model.  MS worked hard with distro vendors to support transparent
> >> >> > > > >mode, ans we really can't have a new model; or do backport.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >Plus, DPDK is now dependent on existing model.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Sorry, but nobody here cares about dpdk or other similar oddities.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The network device model is a userspace API, and DPDK is a userspace application.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It is userspace but are you sure dpdk is actually poking at netdevs?
> >> >> > AFAIK it's normally banging device registers directly.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > You can't go breaking userspace even if you don't like the application.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Could you please explain how is the proposed patchset breaking
> >> >> > userspace? Ignoring DPDK for now, I don't think it changes the userspace
> >> >> > API at all.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The DPDK has a device driver vdev_netvsc which scans the Linux network devices
> >> >> to look for Linux netvsc device and the paired VF device and setup the
> >> >> DPDK environment.  This setup creates a DPDK failsafe (bondingish) instance
> >> >> and sets up TAP support over the Linux netvsc device as well as the Mellanox
> >> >> VF device.
> >> >>
> >> >> So it depends on existing 2 device model. You can't go to a 3 device model
> >> >> or start hiding devices from userspace.
> >> >
> >> > Okay so how does the existing patch break that? IIUC does not go to
> >> > a 3 device model since netvsc calls failover_register directly.
> >> >
> >> >> Also, I am working on associating netvsc and VF device based on serial number
> >> >> rather than MAC address. The serial number is how Windows works now, and it makes
> >> >> sense for Linux and Windows to use the same mechanism if possible.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe we should support same for virtio ...
> >> > Which serial do you mean? From vpd?
> >> >
> >> > I guess you will want to keep supporting MAC for old hypervisors?
> >> >
> >> > It all seems like a reasonable thing to support in the generic core.
> >>
> >> That's the reason why I chose explicit identifier rather than rely on
> >> MAC address to bind/pair a device. MAC address can change. Even if it
> >> can't, malicious guest user can fake MAC address to skip binding.
> >>
> >> -Siwei
> >
> > Address should be sampled at device creation to prevent this
> > kind of hack. Not that it buys the malicious user much:
> > if you can poke at MAC addresses you probably already can
> > break networking.
> 
> I don't understand why poking at MAC address may potentially break
> networking.

Set a MAC address to match another device on the same LAN,
packets will stop reaching that MAC.

> Unlike VF, passthrough PCI endpoint device has its freedom
> to change the MAC address. Even on a VF setup it's not neccessarily
> always safe to assume the VF's MAC address cannot or shouldn't be
> changed. That depends on the specific need whether the host admin
> wants to restrict guest from changing the MAC address, although in
> most cases it's true.
> 
> I understand we can use the perm_addr to distinguish. But as said,
> this will pose limitation of flexible configuration where one can
> assign VFs with identical MAC address at all while each VF belongs to
> different PF and/or different subnet for e.g. load balancing.
> And
> furthermore, the QEMU device model never uses MAC address to be
> interpreted as an identifier, which requires to be unique per VM
> instance. Why we're introducing this inconsistency?
> 
> -Siwei

Because it addresses most of the issues and is simple.  That's already
much better than what we have now which is nothing unless guest
configures things manually.

I think ideally the infrastructure should suppport flexible matching of
NICs - netvsc is already reported to be moving to some kind of serial
address.


> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > MST