Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <9a765411-00ad-307e-9ca2-f6a7defba9cc@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:39:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.5.0
Reply-To: eric.auger@redhat.com
Subject: Re: virtio-iommu hotplug issue
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@daynix.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>
Cc:     virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
References: <15bf1b00-3aa0-973a-3a86-3fa5c4d41d2c@daynix.com>
 <20230413104041.GA3295191@myrica>
 <c6fb5a06-aa7e-91f9-7001-f456b2769595@daynix.com>
From:   Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <c6fb5a06-aa7e-91f9-7001-f456b2769595@daynix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 4/13/23 13:01, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
> On 2023/04/13 19:40, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 01:49:43PM +0900, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Recently I encountered a problem with the combination of Linux's
>>> virtio-iommu driver and QEMU when a SR-IOV virtual function gets
>>> disabled.
>>> I'd like to ask you what kind of solution is appropriate here and
>>> implement
>>> the solution if possible.
>>>
>>> A PCIe device implementing the SR-IOV specification exports a virtual
>>> function, and the guest can enable or disable it at runtime by
>>> writing to a
>>> configuration register. This effectively looks like a PCI device is
>>> hotplugged for the guest.
>>
>> Just so I understand this better: the guest gets a whole PCIe device PF
>> that implements SR-IOV, and so the guest can dynamically create VFs? 
>> Out
>> of curiosity, is that a hardware device assigned to the guest with VFIO,
>> or a device emulated by QEMU?
>
> Yes, that's right. The guest can dynamically create and delete VFs.
> The device is emulated by QEMU: igb, an Intel NIC recently added to
> QEMU and projected to be released as part of QEMU 8.0.
From below description In understand you then bind this emulated device
to VFIO on guest, correct?
>
>>
>>> In such a case, the kernel assumes the endpoint is
>>> detached from the virtio-iommu domain, but QEMU actually does not
>>> detach it.
The QEMU virtio-iommu device executes commands from the virtio-iommu
driver and my understanding is the VFIO infra is not in trouble here. As
suggested by Jean, a detach command probably is missed.
>>>
>>> This inconsistent view of the removed device sometimes prevents the
>>> VM from
>>> correctly performing the following procedure, for example:
>>> 1. Enable a VF.
>>> 2. Disable the VF.
>>> 3. Open a vfio container.
>>> 4. Open the group which the PF belongs to.
>>> 5. Add the group to the vfio container.
>>> 6. Map some memory region.
>>> 7. Close the group.
>>> 8. Close the vfio container.
>>> 9. Repeat 3-8
>>>
>>> When the VF gets disabled, the kernel assumes the endpoint is
>>> detached from
>>> the IOMMU domain, but QEMU actually doesn't detach it. Later, the
>>> domain
>>> will be reused in step 3-8.
>>>
>>> In step 7, the PF will be detached, and the kernel thinks there is no
>>> endpoint attached and the mapping the domain holds is cleared, but
>>> the VF
>>> endpoint is still attached and the mapping is kept intact.
>>>
>>> In step 9, the same domain will be reused again, and the kernel
>>> requests to
>>> create a new mapping, but it will conflict with the existing mapping
>>> and
>>> result in -EINVAL.
>>>
>>> This problem can be fixed by either of:
>>> - requesting the detachment of the endpoint from the guest when the PCI
>>> device is unplugged (the VF is disabled)
>>
>> Yes, I think this is an issue in the virtio-iommu driver, which
>> should be
>> sending a DETACH request when the VF is disabled, likely from
>> viommu_release_device(). I'll work on a fix unless you would like to
>> do it
>
> It will be nice if you prepare a fix. I will test your patch with my
> workload if you share it with me.

I can help testing too

Thanks

Eric
>
> Regards,
> Akihiko Odaki
>
>>
>>> - detecting that the PCI device is gone and automatically detach it on
>>> QEMU-side.
>>>
>>> It is not completely clear for me which solution is more appropriate
>>> as the
>>> virtio-iommu specification is written in a way independent of the
>>> endpoint
>>> mechanism and does not say what should be done when a PCI device is
>>> unplugged.
>>
>> Yes, I'm not sure it's in scope for the specification, it's more about
>> software guidance
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jean
>