On 8/2/21 5:30 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 8:01 AM Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/30/21 9:48 AM, Michal Prívozník wrote:
On 7/29/21 9:27 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 1:35 PM Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/27/21 4:09 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 3:02 AM Michal Prívozník <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/27/21 12:08 AM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 9:47 AM Michal Prívozník <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/23/21 6:40 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote:
Unfortunately, mdevctl supports defining more than one mdev with the
same UUID as long as they have different parent devices. (Only one of
these devices can be active at any given time).
This means that we can't use the UUID alone as a way to uniquely
identify mdev node devices. Append the parent address to ensure
uniqueness. For example:
Before: mdev_88a6b868_46bd_4015_8e5b_26107f82da38
After: mdev_88a6b868_46bd_4015_8e5b_26107f82da38_0000_00_02_0
Related: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1979440
Signed-off-by: Jonathon Jongsma <jjongsma@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
src/node_device/node_device_driver.c | 3 ++-
src/node_device/node_device_udev.c | 2 +-
tests/nodedevmdevctldata/mdevctl-list-multiple.out.xml | 8 ++++----
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
The patch looks good, but for some reason it leaves API breakage
aftertaste. But I guess we don't document anywhere what MDEV <name/>
looks like, do we? IOW - we are free to change it if needed.
That is true -- it does have a bit of a bad aftertaste. As far as I
know, we haven't documented or promised any specific naming format for
mdevs. But it could certainly cause some pain for people that are
using mdevs already, which might be reason enough to reject or adjust
this patch. If a person already has assigned a mdev device to their vm
with the old name, the name would change when upgrading libvirt. That
could make the domain definition become invalid.
But, we have to deal with this situation somehow. We don't have a
choice but to handle the case where mdevctl might return multiple
defined devices with the same UUID. I considered a couple of other
approaches to handling this that I rejected, such as
- only add a suffix to the second such device with the same UUID
- rejected because the name of a given device depends on the order
in which it was observed and the presence of other devices. For
example, if we have two devices: mdev_$UUID and mdev_$UUID_$PARENT,
and the first device was undefined, then when libvirt was restarted,
mdev_$UUID_$PARENT would change its name to mdev_$UUID because it is
now the only device with that UUID
Agreed, this would not make situation any better, in fact worse.
- name all *active* mdevs mdev_$UUID and use a different scheme for
inactive, defined mdevs
- rejected because the device would change names when it changed
from inactive to active.
Yeah, this is equally horrible.
- ignore this situation because probably almost nobody uses multiple
devices with the same UUID
- but do they?
Frankly, I don't have enough experience with MDEVs, but since it's
possible to define an MDEV with an existing UUID, it is possible to
define it also for the same parent? I mean, if I'd have an MDEV capable
graphics card and I'd define two MDEVs with the same UUID they would
both have the same parent, wouldn't they? Because in that case,
appending PCI address to libvirt's name is not enough.
Nope, it's the opposite in fact. mdevctl allows you to define two or
more mdevs with the same UUID, but only if they have different
parents. Only a single mdev with a given UUID can be activated at the
same time. So among *active* devices, the UUID is indeed unique. But
not among persistent device definitions. For defined devices, the UUID
is guaranteed unique per parent.
I discussed this with Alex a while ago and he thought that the reason
that mdevctl supported this was to allow people to assign an mdev with
a specific UUID to a vm, but that UUID could represent one of several
(equivalent?) devices, depending on which parent device was present in
the host or which device was instantiated. That feature doesn't seem
very compelling to me, and Alex wasn't sure that anybody was actually
using it that way. But the fact remains that mdevctl does allow people
to configure things this way and it seems like we need to be prepared
to deal with it.
I am questioning how a user is supposed to correlate the nodedev
representation with mdev_{uuid}_{parent} to a domain using the mdev like
<devices>
<hostdev mode='subsystem' type='mdev' model='vfio-ccw'>
<source>
<address uuid='{uuid}'/>
</source>
</hostdev>
</devices>
Sorry for potentially confusing the impact of this change with my
previous comments. I had said that domains with mdevs assigned might
become invalid if the nodedev name changes. But that's not actually
true. The naming that we're discussing is only related to the name of
the device within the libvirt nodedev driver. When adding a mediated
device to a domain, you don't use this nodedev name, you use the UUID
directly. This is similar to the way you add a physical passthrough
PCI device to a domain using its PCI address rather than its
'pci_$domain_$bus_$slot_$fn' nodedev name.
Reading uuid it tells me its universal unique
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier) but now
this is not true for definitions which breaks the term universal in my
small universe since for the defined state of an mdev it becomes
"parental" unique...
Yes, that's true. Which is why I think this is a questionable feature. But:
A) defined devices are only *potential* devices.This is not all that
different from the fact that a user can manually instantiate a mdev on
parent A with a specific UUID and then later instantiate a totally
different mdev on parent B with the exact same UUID. One UUID refers
to different devices at different times.
B) the question we're discussing is not whether mdevctl should allow
duplicate UUIDs or not. mdevctl *already* allows it, so we need to
figure out how to deal with it in libvirt.
I suppose one potential possibility might be to change upstream
mdevctl to disallow duplicate UUIDs and then require this new mdevctl
version for libvirt. But that's a discussion we'd have to have in
upstream mdevctl first.
Maybe we can start the discussion, but even in libvirt you are allowed
to have two guests with the same name and UUID if they are in different
drivers (e.g. one in QEMU and one in LXC).
Meanwhile, I think these can be pushed as we don't have much options anyway.
Michal
I think that we have at least one option.
We could rethink the approach to create nodedev objects based on mdevctl
mdev definitions which actually are not a usable host resource for domains.
If I understand your suggestion, I don't think it solves any problems.
It seems to me that you're saying that libvirt should ignore all mdev
definitions from mdevctl if the parent does not (yet?) exist on the
host. (At least that's my interpretation of your phrase "definitions
which are not a usable host resource"). But it's still possible to
have definitions with duplicate UUIDs for devices which have parents
that *do* exist on the host but are simply not instantiated yet. If
I'm misinterpreting your comment, feel free to clarify.
I used to think of the nodedev objects as libvirt showing the user its
view of devices it can understand in the sysfs. This changed when mdev
nodedev objects got created based on mdevctl's mediated device definition.
These definition objects are different from the sysfs objects.
One difference is state active/inactive which caused e.g. the
introduction of the option "inactive" on list operation.
When we now talk about an nodedev mdev object it could be
a) an instantiated mediated devices without mdev definition,
b) an instantiated mediated devices with mdev definition or
c) just an mdev definition,
but just an instantiated mediated device [part of a) and b)] is actually
a host resource one can use in a domain.
So what I meant by "...not usable host resources" was the definition
itself is not usable for a domain. The sysfs based host resources are.
I agree that mdev definitions and operations on these definitions have a
value but I am getting the feeling that they do not fit so well into the
nodedev objects especially with the new twist of the loss of identity
uniqueness which results from my perspective in a very messy nodedev
object space.
There is one other thing I noticed. I can change an mdev definition
after I initiated/started the mdev definition. This is kind of starting
a domain and afterwards change/edit its persisted definition. So when
dumping the xml one would need to be able to chose running/started or
defined. This currently is not a big issue since there are not many
actually no attributes that can be retrieved via mdevctl from a
running/started mdev but it just adds to the disparity since currently
the user of nodedev gets the mdev definition and running/started mdev in
a merged nodedev object.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Kind regards
Boris Fiuczynski
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Gregor Pillen
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
