Re: [libvirt] [RFC] On present using dummy hostdev usb device
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:09:06AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 08:44:03AM +0000, Nikolay Shirokovskiy
wrote:
> Hi, all!
>
> We use an interesting approach when starting/migrating/etc domain with usb
> hostdev with startupPolicy=optional. We add qemu usb-host device with
> missing hostaddr/hostbus parameters (dummy device). I guess there are
> 2 reasons why we do it. First without dummy device migration will fail as
> described in [1]. Second is an interesting property of dummy device that
> qemu starts to monitor for attaching of usb devices and binds the first
> attached to node to the dummy device. So one can start a domain with
> missing hostdev and attach it later or migrate a domain then detach
> hostdev on source and attach it on destination. But as qemu binds the
> first attached device this is not reliable, to say the least. And after
> all this does not work if domain uses distinct mount namespace which
> is default.
Even without mount namespaces, it should fail as QEMU is running non-root
and libvirt won't have granted access to any host USB devices in /dev, and
also SELinux policy will forbid this.
Right, but the case with mount namespaces is particularly problematic:
if the device open fails due to missing device node, libusb removes the
device from its internal device list. This results in the following
scenario:
- libvirt adds a dummy usb-host device to QEMU in place of a missing
device
- QEMU (via libusb) installs a watch for udev add events
- the physical device is plugged into the host
- QEMU detects the addition of the device and, since the dummy device
matches everything, tries to open it
- by this time libvirt may have not created a device node in QEMU's
mount namespace, so the open fails due to missing device node, and
libusb removes the device from its internal list
- libvirt removes the dummy usb-host device and adds the actual usb-host
device
- QEMU fails to open it because it's no longer seen by libusb
IOW a usb-host device with missing=true can't (reliably, because
sometimes libvirt is quick enough to create the device node before QEMU
gives up opening it) turn into a working one without QEMU restart.
> So I question does it make sense to use dummy device at all?
In case of
> migration/resume from suspend/revert to snapshot we can either fix qemu to
> ignore incoming missing hostdev data or add dummy device temporarily. The
> latter solution is worse as it brings dummy device behaviour even for a short
> period of time. However having a temporary dummy device is neccessary step
> towards the time when all supported versions of qemu do the mentioned ignoring.
> As to handling attaching of missing hostdev device to node it should be done in
> libvirt which can do necessary mount namespace actions. (Actually I developing
> such patches right now but some peculiarities of dummy device bring me here).
The problems around host USB device passthrough are conceptually similar
to the problems of hots PCI device passthrough.
In both cases we cannot assume the device present on the source device
exists on the target device in the same way.
In both cases, even if the device does exist on the target, we cannot
serialize the state of the host device across the migration.
Right.
For PCI devices we simply refuse to initiate the migration if any
host
PCI devices are attached. The mgmt app has to hot-unplug all devices
before migration, and hot-plug new devices after migration if desired.
I'm inclined to suggest that same approach of hotunplug + hotplug either
side of migration is the only viable option for host USB devices too.
As such any mgmt app could do this dance today without any changes in
libvirt.
Are you trying to say that the mgmt app should just refrain from
creating usb-host devices with missing=true?
If we turned host USB devices into a migration blocker though, that
could be considered a significant change of behaviour for mgmt apps,
even though this dummy USB device is effectively useless due to our
security policies.
I'm afraid the issue is a bit more severe: the dummy device isn't just
useless, it stands in the way of the real device later on.
Thanks,
Roman.