[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/5] virtio: introduce SUSPEND bit and vq state
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 08:16:13PM +0800, Zhu, Lingshan wrote: > > > On 9/20/2023 8:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 07:22:32PM +0800, Zhu, Lingshan wrote: > > > > > > On 9/20/2023 6:36 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 02:06:13PM +0800, Zhu, Lingshan wrote: > > > > > On 9/19/2023 2:49 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 06:41:55PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > > > > Please refer to the code for setting FEATURES_OK. > > > > > > > It wont work when one needs to suspend the device. > > > > > > > There is no point of doing such work over registers as fundamental framework is over the AQ. > > > > > > Well not really. It's over admin commands. When these were built the > > > > > > intent always was that it's possible to use admin commands through > > > > > > another interface, other than admin queue. Is there a problem > > > > > > implementing admin commands over a memory BAR? For example, I can see > > > > > > an "admin command" capability pointing at a BAR where > > > > > > commands are supplied, and using a new group type referring to > > > > > > device itself. > > > > > I am not sure, if a bar cap would be implemented as a proxy for the admin vq > > > > > based live migration. > > > > Not a proxy for a vq in that there's no vq then. > > > I think if the driver sends admin commands through a VF's bar, then > > > VF forwards the admin commands to the PF, it acts like a proxy, > > > or an agent. Anyway it takes admin commands. > > Why send them to the PF? They are controlling the VF anyway. > I think its still too heavy compared to this series proposal it will be on you to prove all the complexity is unnecessary though. > > > > > So the problems we have discussed still exist. > > > > > then the problems of admin vq LM that we have > > > > > discussed > > > > > still exist. > > > > I freely admit the finer points of this extended flamewar have been lost > > > > on me, and I wager I'm not the only one. I thought you wanted to migrate > > > > the device just by accessing the device itself (e.g. the VF) without > > > > accessing other devices (e.g. the PF), while Parav wants it in a > > > > separate device so the whole of the device itself can passed through to > > > > guest. Isn't this, fundamentally, the issue? > > > we are implementing basic facilities for live migration. > > > > > > We have pointed out lots of issues, there are many discussions with > > > Jason and Parav about the problems in migration by admin vq, for example: > > > security, QOS and nested. > > /me shrugs > > Thanks for the summary I guess. Same applies to almost any proposal. > > What would help make progress is an explanation why this has grown into > > a megathread. Do you understand Parav's thoughts well enough to > > summarize them? > as far as I see, I don't see admin vq as must for live migration. > and it does not serve nested for sure. > > > > > > > the bar is only a proxy, doesn't fix anything. and even larger > > > > > side channel attacking surface: vf-->pf-->vf > > > > In this model there's no pf. BAR belongs to vf itself > > > > and you submit commands for the VF through its BAR. > > > > Just separate from the pci config space. > > > If using the bar to process admin commands, > > > is this solution too heavy compared to my proposal in this series? > > somewhat - because it's more comprehensive - you can actually > > migrate a device using it. > > this series just begins to define how to poke at some > > of the vq state - it's a subset of the necessary functionality. > > > > And it will give you a bunch of side benefits, such as > > support for legacy compat commands that were merged. > next version will include in-flight descriptors and dirty page tracking. what we don't need is another version of this megathread. which it sounds like you intend to restart? nor do I cherish maintaining two independent mechanisms for doing the same thing in the spec. all of the above is already in parav's patchset so you guys should find a way to work together rather than compete? > I failed to process the comments for legacy. > legacy devices are defined by code than the spec, if wants to migrate legacy > devices, maybe working on QEMU first that is not much in the way of addressing, just saying go pound sand. the functionality has already been accepted by the TC though I don't know what you are trying to say here. that we should drop it from spec? > > > > > > > > > > The whole attacking surface discussion is also puzzling. We either are > > > > or are not discussing confidential computing/TDI. I couldn't figure > > > > it out. This needs a separate thread I think. > > > I agree confidential computing is out of spec. Parva mentioned TDISP and > > > even > > > in TDISP spec, it explicitly defined some attacking model, and PF is an > > > example. > > > > > > It is out of spec anyway. > > OK so we are ignoring TDISP applications for now? Everyone agrees on > > that? > sure > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]