Re: git: f4e35c044c89 - main - bus: Set the current VNET in device_attach()
- In reply to: Mark Johnston : "Re: git: f4e35c044c89 - main - bus: Set the current VNET in device_attach()"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 00:48:56 UTC
On Sat, 19 Oct 2024, Mark Johnston wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 11:50:40PM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Oct 2024, Mark Johnston wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 07:10:53PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >>>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 11:36:32AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >>>>> On 10/19/24 09:04, Mark Johnston wrote: >>>>>> The branch main has been updated by markj: >>>>>> >>>>>> URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=f4e35c044c8988b7452cefbdcc417f5fd723e021 >>>>>> >>>>>> commit f4e35c044c8988b7452cefbdcc417f5fd723e021 >>>>>> Author: Mark Johnston <markj@FreeBSD.org> >>>>>> AuthorDate: 2024-10-19 13:03:56 +0000 >>>>>> Commit: Mark Johnston <markj@FreeBSD.org> >>>>>> CommitDate: 2024-10-19 13:03:56 +0000 >>>>>> >>>>>> bus: Set the current VNET in device_attach() >>>>>> Some drivers, in particular anything which creates an ifnet during >>>>>> attach, need to have the current VNET set, as if_attach_internal() and >>>>>> its callees access VNET-global variables. >>>>>> device_probe_and_attach() handles this, but this is not the only way to >>>>>> arrive in DEVICE_ATTACH. In particular, bus drivers may invoke >>>>>> device_attach() directly, as does devctl2's DEV_ENABLE ioctl handler. >>>>>> So, set the current VNET in device_attach() instead. >>>>>> I believe it is always safe to use vnet0, as devctl2 ioctls are not >>>>>> permitted within a jail. >>>>>> PR: 282168 >>>>>> Reviewed by: zlei, kevans, bz, imp, glebius >>>>>> MFC after: 1 week >>>>>> Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D47174 >>>>> >>>>> Hmm, there was some other review I thought that had a completely different change. >>>>> That change removed all the vnet stuff from new-bus and instead handled it in >>>>> if.c. Specifically, that if_attach would set a default vnet to vnet0 if there >>>>> wasn't an active vnet at the time. See all the discussion in >>>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D42678 which has a patch that I think is correct >>>>> in the comments. >> >> There it was; thanks I didn't misremeber but couldn't find it. >> >> >>> Gleb's proposal, described a bit in D47147, is to require device-based >>> ifnet drivers to fully detach themselves from the parent bus in order to >>> change VNETs. The intent is to eliminate the need for if_vmove() and >>> all the complexity it entails. This would also eliminate the need for a >>> "home" VNET, referenced in the patch that you reference here. >> >> Will it? >> >> I asked for a discussion elsewhere but it seems we are having it here now... > > I'm responding to John's question and Kostik's follow-up, nothing else. > The inline patch in D42678 seems fine, I don't have strong feelings > about it, but I believe it is not sufficient to fix the PR in question > (it still assumes that the current vnet is already set). > >> I am still inclined to ask: >> - how do you want a vnet to attach an unknown to itself device? From >> the outside? >> - How to you pass it to a child-vnet without escalating priviledges to >> outside of the host system (vnet0)? >> - Is, e.g., a vcc device [CXGBE(4)] a physical interface? >> - How do you pass a controlled set of other non-clonable devices in (or >> did we get rid of them all)? The inital idea was still that the >> "host" has somehow control over what child can create... >> { I recently tried tuntap in a vnet and it blew up badly by not going >> away } >> - exmaple: I really would love, e.g., a vlan interface to be passed to a >> vnet but but not the pyhsical interface. Can we? >> - How will we do with wlan interfaces (which are cloned) but may not own >> the hardware (kind-of similar to the vcc example)? I know there are >> special PRIV checks for those currently. >> - how does a detach in a vnet work and where will the physical interface >> re-appear for (automatic) attachment? just detached in that jail? >> vnet0? the parent jail? >> - what happens on vnet destroy? (same as last question)? >> - Are we just going to build a vmove on a layer which doesn't have >> anything to do with networking per-se as a special case for some >> interfaces but not others? > > These are excellent questions which should be posed to Gleb when his > proposal is fleshed out. In the meantime, I only aimed to fix an > obvious shortcoming of an existing hack which has been around for over > 10 years. ACK & ACK -- Bjoern A. Zeeb r15:7