From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23311C43381 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 22:38:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D599A2063F for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 22:38:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730340AbfB0WiS (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:38:18 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-f195.google.com ([209.85.160.195]:42806 "EHLO mail-qt1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730074AbfB0WiS (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:38:18 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-f195.google.com with SMTP id u7so12090741qtg.9 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:38:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=i9vAU2bfl+KGUaWOnxh+fYH0ySbcuO8atzvAd5mJWeI=; b=hkd+wK3piDg9IpAXAJnhcWl9S/ys81RqvFapwNKV7o9cF/eg9o5+WrryPy6Z8085+I aJ5sSK43F5Q78iJRl658LLg43Di+NwRxjhpywP/qar/+acNVgTytfA/aZkS5kaaEEG81 UNeLucbaDOcqG6RQnJv0nyK2YmEnNcBrUy+q8kfc2TxYlJg3WxDt3t0o4raG4XIAd37a id9iN6atiY3MM+YLofZEEErbsInbSPlOoQr+JeIUqpdtRMIzoEy9Euql134Dn97Tvyhi gnS+jUJ/e3OsYZyjZ2cPYbBldMoB/9IYTITyuYaR3moe5iBkNz2hxzDMiE6872yQFker JoVw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaDBoieDwOnmSJq34sG0Aqly6t14yrOfpSaTDQxxUqXhXp8SpS3 z1JsZ/DNwo1KvvY928Fs39QdlA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz/HSngKpsm8wF0c8qLOU5G4iUBYydF6XP3or5Kk+cd9Yu8lyTXPA9zKByjpxZ+Oys83e7wSA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2e70:: with SMTP id s45mr3698169qta.376.1551307096548; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:38:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from redhat.com (pool-173-76-246-42.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [173.76.246.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m128sm9877993qkf.53.2019.02.27.14.38.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:38:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:38:12 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: si-wei liu Cc: "Samudrala, Sridhar" , Siwei Liu , Jiri Pirko , Stephen Hemminger , David Miller , Netdev , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, virtio-dev , "Brandeburg, Jesse" , Alexander Duyck , Jakub Kicinski , Jason Wang , liran.alon@oracle.com Subject: 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) Message-ID: <20190227173710-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20180411075334.GK2028@nanopsycho> <20190221203808-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <581e4399-3969-aecd-e923-03bbc0880733@oracle.com> <91d4cbb1-be7a-b53c-6b2a-99bef07e7c53@intel.com> <20190222100753-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190225210529-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 04:17:21PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > On 2/25/2019 6:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 04:58:07PM -0800, si-wei liu wrote: > > > > > > On 2/22/2019 7:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > 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? > > > No. I never believed this particular issue can be fixed in userspace alone. > > > Previously someone had said it could be, but I never see any work or > > > relevant discussion ever happened in various userspace communities (for e.g. > > > dracut, initramfs-tools, systemd, udev, and NetworkManager). IMHO the root > > > of the issue derives from the kernel, it makes more sense to start from > > > netdev, work out and decide on a solution: see what can be done in the > > > kernel in order to fix it, then after that engage userspace community for > > > the feasibility... > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > See attached diagram. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > I was elaborating a few examples that the expectation and assumption that > > > user/admin scripts only deal with master failover device is incorrect. It > > > had never been taken good care of, although I did try to emphasize it from > > > the very beginning. > > > > > > Basically what you said about propagating the ethtool configuration down to > > > the slave is the key pursuance of 1-netdev model. However, what I am seeking > > > now is any alternative that can also fix the specific udev rename problem, > > > before concluding that 1-netdev is the only solution. Generally a 1-netdev > > > scheme would take time to implement, while I'm trying to find a way out to > > > fix this particular naming problem under 3-netdev. > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > At this point we don't claim images with such usage as SR-IOV live > > > migrate-able. We would flag it as live migrate-able until this ethtool > > > config issue is fully addressed and a transparent live migration solution > > > emerges in upstream eventually. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -Siwei > > > > > > > > > > > -Siwei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > > net_failover(kernel) | network.service (user) | systemd-udevd (user) > > > --------------------------------------------------+------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- > > > (standby virtio-net and net_failover | | > > > devices created and initialized, | | > > > i.e. virtnet_probe()-> | | > > > net_failover_create() | | > > > was done.) | | > > > | | > > > | runs `ifup ens3' -> | > > > | ip link set dev ens3 up | > > > net_failover_open() | | > > > dev_open(virtnet_dev) | | > > > virtnet_open(virtnet_dev) | | > > > netif_carrier_on(failover_dev) | | > > > ... | | > > > | | > > > (VF hot plugged in) | | > > > ixgbevf_probe() | | > > > register_netdev(ixgbevf_netdev) | | > > > netdev_register_kobject(ixgbevf_netdev) | | > > > kobject_add(ixgbevf_dev) | | > > > device_add(ixgbevf_dev) | | > > > kobject_uevent(&ixgbevf_dev->kobj, KOBJ_ADD) | | > > > netlink_broadcast() | | > > > ... | | > > > call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_REGISTER) | | > > > failover_event(..., NETDEV_REGISTER, ...) | | > > > failover_slave_register(ixgbevf_netdev) | | > > > net_failover_slave_register(ixgbevf_netdev) | | > > > dev_open(ixgbevf_netdev) | | > > > | | > > > | | > > > | | received ADD uevent from netlink fd > > > | | ... > > > | | udev-builtin-net_id.c:dev_pci_slot() > > > | | (decided to renamed 'eth0' ) > > > | | ip link set dev eth0 name ens4 > > > (dev_change_name() returns -EBUSY as | | > > > ixgbevf_netdev->flags has IFF_UP) | | > > > | | > > > > > Given renaming slaves does not work anyway: > I was actually thinking what if we relieve the rename restriction just for > the failover slave? What the impact would be? I think users don't care about > slave being renamed when it's in use, especially the initial rename. > Thoughts? > > > would it work if we just > > hard-coded slave names instead? > > > > E.g. > > 1. fail slave renames > > 2. rename of failover to XX automatically renames standby to XXnsby > > and primary to XXnpry > That wouldn't help. The time when the failover master gets renamed, the VF > may not be present. In this scheme if VF is not there it will be renamed immediately after registration. > I don't like the idea to delay exposing failover master > until VF is hot plugged in (probably subject to various failures) later. > > Thanks, > -Siwei I agree, this was not what I meant. > > > >