Linux virtualization list

* Re: [virtio-dev] Re: net_failover slave udev renaming (was Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the bypass framework)
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2019-02-22 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: si-wei liu
  Cc: Alexander Duyck, virtio-dev, Jiri Pirko, Jakub Kicinski,
	Samudrala, Sridhar, virtualization, Siwei Liu, liran.alon, Netdev,
	David Miller
In-Reply-To: <d9ef40a2-237b-0cce-4401-ecaeac4c602a@oracle.com>

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:55:11PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/21/2019 11:00 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 2/21/2019 7:33 PM, si-wei liu wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2/21/2019 5:39 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 05:14:44PM -0800, Siwei Liu wrote:
> > > > > Sorry for replying to this ancient thread. There was some remaining
> > > > > issue that I don't think the initial net_failover patch got addressed
> > > > > cleanly, see:
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1815268
> > > > > 
> > > > > The renaming of 'eth0' to 'ens4' fails because the udev userspace was
> > > > > not specifically writtten for such kernel automatic enslavement.
> > > > > Specifically, if it is a bond or team, the slave would typically get
> > > > > renamed *before* virtual device gets created, that's what udev can
> > > > > control (without getting netdev opened early by the other part of
> > > > > kernel) and other userspace components for e.g. initramfs,
> > > > > init-scripts can coordinate well in between. The in-kernel
> > > > > auto-enslavement of net_failover breaks this userspace convention,
> > > > > which don't provides a solution if user care about consistent naming
> > > > > on the slave netdevs specifically.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Previously this issue had been specifically called out when IFF_HIDDEN
> > > > > and the 1-netdev was proposed, but no one gives out a solution to this
> > > > > problem ever since. Please share your mind how to proceed and solve
> > > > > this userspace issue if netdev does not welcome a 1-netdev model.
> > > > Above says:
> > > > 
> > > >     there's no motivation in the systemd/udevd community at
> > > >     this point to refactor the rename logic and make it work well with
> > > >     3-netdev.
> > > > 
> > > > What would the fix be? Skip slave devices?
> > > > 
> > > There's nothing user can get if just skipping slave devices - the
> > > name is still unchanged and unpredictable e.g. eth0, or eth1 the
> > > next reboot, while the rest may conform to the naming scheme (ens3
> > > and such). There's no way one can fix this in userspace alone - when
> > > the failover is created the enslaved netdev was opened by the kernel
> > > earlier than the userspace is made aware of, and there's no
> > > negotiation protocol for kernel to know when userspace has done
> > > initial renaming of the interface. I would expect netdev list should
> > > at least provide the direction in general for how this can be
> > > solved...

I was just wondering what did you mean when you said
"refactor the rename logic and make it work well with 3-netdev" -
was there a proposal udev rejected?

Anyway, can we write a time diagram for what happens in which order that
leads to failure?  That would help look for triggers that we can tie
into, or add new ones.

> > > 
> > Is there an issue if slave device names are not predictable? The user/admin scripts are expected
> > to only work with the master failover device.
> Where does this expectation come from?
> 
> Admin users may have ethtool or tc configurations that need to deal with
> predictable interface name. Third-party app which was built upon specifying
> certain interface name can't be modified to chase dynamic names.
> 
> Specifically, we have pre-canned image that uses ethtool to fine tune VF
> offload settings post boot for specific workload. Those images won't work
> well if the name is constantly changing just after couple rounds of live
> migration.

It should be possible to specify the ethtool configuration on the
master and have it automatically propagated to the slave.

BTW this is something we should look at IMHO.

> > Moreover, you were suggesting hiding the lower slave devices anyway. There was some discussion
> > about moving them to a hidden network namespace so that they are not visible from the default namespace.
> > I looked into this sometime back, but did not find the right kernel api to create a network namespace within
> > kernel. If so, we could use this mechanism to simulate a 1-netdev model.
> Yes, that's one possible implementation (IMHO the key is to make 1-netdev
> model as much transparent to a real NIC as possible, while a hidden netns is
> just the vehicle). However, I recall there was resistance around this
> discussion that even the concept of hiding itself is a taboo for Linux
> netdev. I would like to summon potential alternatives before concluding
> 1-netdev is the only solution too soon.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Siwei

Your scripts would not work at all then, right?

> > 
> > > -Siwei
> > > 
> > > 

^ permalink raw reply