On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 05:39:38PM +0100, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
> On 11/12/18 1:14 PM, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > Even though commit 11708641 claims that a domain is allowed have a
> > single VFIO AP hostdev only, this is a limitation posed by the platform
> > vendor on purely virtual devices. Generally, post parse should only be
> I am little confused by the term "purely virtual devices".
> If you are talking about the mediated device itself "purely virtual" sounds
> okay but if you also consider what it represents within a guest than that is
> no longer "purely virtual" since a vfio-ap hostdev represents a bunch of
> "real crypto hardware" that is passed through to the guest.
Yes, I was talking in context of mediated devices themselves, otherwise it
would not make sense as you pointed out (not just for AP). So, let's go simple,
how about I rewrite the whole commit message in the following manner:
"VFIO AP has a limitation on a single device per domain, however, when commit
11708641 added support for vfio-ap, this limitation was performed as part of
post parse. Generally, checks like this should be performed within the driver's
validation callback to eliminate any possible chance of failing in post parse,
which in the worst case could lead to the XML config to vanish."
Would you be okay with ^that?
>
> > used to populate some default values if missing or at least fail
> > gracefully with VIR_DOMAIN_DEF_PARSE_ALLOW_POST_PARSE_FAIL).
> >
> > This patch more of an attempt to follow the guidelines for adding new
> > features rather than a precaution measure, since even if vfio-ap
> > supported multiple devices, one would have to downgrade libvirt for a
> > machine to vanish from the list or in terms of future device migration
> > to slightly older libvirt, there would be most probably a driver mismatch
> > that would render the migration impossible anyway.
I'd then just drop ^this paragraph, doesn't add much info anyway.
>
> I agree that this is the correct place for the checking. Thanks for catching
> and fixing it. I successfully ran some tests with these changes with regard
> to vfio-ap. Looks good to me so far.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Erik Skultety <eskultet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > src/conf/domain_conf.c | 28 ----------------------------
> > src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> > index 237540bccc..e8e0adc819 100644
> > --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> > +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> > @@ -4275,31 +4275,6 @@ virDomainDefPostParseGraphics(virDomainDef *def)
> > }
> > -static int
> > -virDomainDefPostParseHostdev(virDomainDefPtr def)
> > -{
> > - size_t i;
> > - bool vfioap_found = false;
> > -
> > - /* verify settings of hostdevs vfio-ap */
> > - for (i = 0; i < def->nhostdevs; i++) {
> > - virDomainHostdevDefPtr hostdev = def->hostdevs[i];
> > -
> > - if (virHostdevIsMdevDevice(hostdev) &&
> > - hostdev->source.subsys.u.mdev.model == VIR_MDEV_MODEL_TYPE_VFIO_AP) {
> > - if (vfioap_found) {
> > - virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
> > - _("Only one hostdev of model vfio-ap is "
> > - "supported"));
> > - return -1;
> > - }
> > - vfioap_found = true;
> > - }
> > - }
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > -
> > /**
> > * virDomainDriveAddressIsUsedByDisk:
> > * @def: domain definition containing the disks to check
> > @@ -5210,9 +5185,6 @@ virDomainDefPostParseCommon(virDomainDefPtr def,
> > virDomainDefPostParseGraphics(def);
> > - if (virDomainDefPostParseHostdev(def) < 0)
> > - return -1;
> > -
> > if (virDomainDefPostParseCPU(def) < 0)
> > return -1;
> > diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
> > index 17d207513d..90253ae867 100644
> > --- a/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
> > +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_domain.c
> > @@ -4599,6 +4599,32 @@ qemuDomainMdevDefVFIOPCIValidate(const virDomainHostdevSubsysMediatedDev *dev,
> > }
> > +static int
> > +qemuDomainMdevDefVFIOAPValidate(const virDomainDef *def)
> > +{
> > + size_t i;
> > + bool vfioap_found = false;
> > +
> > + /* currently, VFIO-AP is restricted to a single device only */
> Well, even so it is just on mdev device it defines the complete set of
> crypto devices consisting of adapters, domains and controldomains on the AP
> bus of the guest. The ap architecture allows only one such configuration.
> So I suggest to remove "currently," and instead of "single device" to write
> "single mediated device".
Okay, I should finally read the spec. Anyway, I always tend to look at this
stuff from a larger perspective, in this case, mdev itself - it doesn't have
such a limitation (it may exist within the vendor driver, like NVIDIA and we
obviously don't check that because vfio-pci doesn't have that either). But AP is
different, as I said, I need to look at the spec. I'll adjust according to your
suggestion.
Thanks for review and testing the patch,
Erik
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
