[libvirt-users] RLIMIT_MEMLOCK in container environment
Laine Stump
laine at redhat.com
Sat Aug 24 20:23:46 UTC 2019
On 8/24/19 3:08 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019, 0:27 Laine Stump, <laine at redhat.com
> <mailto:laine at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> (Adding Alex Williamson to Cc so he can correct any mistakes)
>
> On 8/22/19 4:39 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:01 PM Laine Stump <laine at redhat.com
> <mailto:laine at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8/22/19 10:56 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 2:24 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
> <berrange at redhat.com <mailto:berrange at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 01:37:21PM -0700, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> KubeVirt uses libvirtd to manage qemu VMs represented as
> Kubernetes
> >>>>> API resources. In this case, libvirtd is running inside an
> >>>>> unprivileged pod, with some host mounts / capabilities added
> to the
> >>>>> pod, needed by libvirtd and other services.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One of the capabilities libvirtd requires for successful startup
> >>>>> inside a pod is SYS_RESOURCE. This capability is used to adjust
> >>>>> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK ulimit value depending on devices attached to the
> >>>>> managed guest, both on startup and during hotplug. AFAIU the
> need to
> >>>>> lock the memory is to avoid pages being pushed out from RAM
> into swap.
> >>
> >>
> >> I recall successfully testing GPU assignment from an unprivileged
> >> libvirtd several years ago by setting a high enough ulimit for
> the uid
> >> used to run libvirtd in advance (. I think we check if the current
> >> setting is high enough, and don't try to set it unless we think
> we need to.
> >>
> >
> > The PR I linked to in the original email does just that: it starts
> > libvirtd; then, if domain is going to use VFIO, sets ulimit of
> > libvirtd process to VM memory size + 1Gb (mimicking libvirt code) +
> > 256Mb (to stay conservative) using prlimit() syscall; then
> defines the
> > domain.
>
> So you're making an educated guess, which is essentially what
> libvirt is
> doing (based on advice from other people with better information than
> us, but still a guess).
>
> >
> >> If I understand you correctly, you're saying that in your case
> it's okay
> >> for the memlock limit to be lower than we try to set it to,
> because swap
> >> is disabled anyway, is that correct?
> >>
> >
> > I'm honestly not exactly sure about the reason why we need to set the
> > limit, but I assume it's because of swap. I can be totally
> confused on
> > that part though.
>
>
> What I understand from an IRC conversation with Alex just now is that
> increasing RLIMIT_MEMLOCK isn't done just to prevent any of the pages
> being swapped out. It's done because "all GPAs (Guest Physical
> Addresses) that could potentially be DMA targets need to have fixed
> mappings through the iommu, therefore all need to be allocated and
> mappings fixed [...] setting rlimit allows us to perform all the
> necessary pins within the user's locked memory limit".
>
> So even if swap is disabled, it still needs to be done (either by
> libvirt, or by someone else who has the necessary privileges and
> control
> over the libvirtd process).
>
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Libvirt shouldn't set RLIMIT_MEMLOCK by default, unless there's
> >>>> something in the XML that requires it - one of
> >>>
> >>> You are right, sorry. We add SYS_RESOURCE only for particular
> domains.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> - hard limit memory value is present
> >>>> - host PCI device passthrough is requested
> >>>
> >>> We are using passthrough
> >>
> >> (If you want to make Alex happy, use the term "VFIO device
> assignment"
> >> rather than passthrough :-).)
> >>
> >
> > Not sure who Alex is but I'll try to make everyone happy! :)
>
> The Alex I'm referring to is the Alex I just Cc'ed. He is the VFIO
> maintainer.
>
>
> >>> to pass SR-IOV NIC VFs into guests. We also
> >>> plan to do the same for GPUs in the near future.
> >>
> >> >>> I believe we would benefit from one of the following
> features on
> >> >>> libvirt side (or both):
> >> >>>
> >> >>> a) expose the memory lock value calculated by libvirtd through
> >> >>> libvirt ABI so that we can use it when calling prlimit()
> on libvirtd
> >> >>> process;
> >> >>> b) allow to disable setrlimit() calls via libvirtd config
> file knob
> >> >>> or domain definition.
> >>
> >> (b) sounds much more reasonable, as long as qemu doesn't complain (I
> >> don't know whether or not it checks)
> >>
> >> Slightly related to this - I'm currently working on patches to avoid
> >> making any ioctl calls that would fail in an unprivileged
> libvirtd when
> >> using tap/macvtap devices.
>
>
> This is music to my ears, great to hear.
>
> ATM, I'm doing this by adding an attribute
> >> "unmanaged='yes'" to the interface <target> element. The idea is
> that if
> >> someone sets unmanaged='yes', they're stating that the caller (i.e.
> >> kubevirt) is responsible for all device setup, and that libvirt
> should
> >> just use it without further setup. A similar approach could be
> applied
> >> to hostdev devices - if unmanaged is set, we assume that the
> caller has
> >> done everything to make the associated device usable.
> >>
> >> (Of course this all makes me realize the inanity of adding a <target
> >> dev='blah' unmanaged='yes'/> for interfaces when hostdevs
> already have
> >> <hostdev managed='yes'> and <interface type='hostdev'
> managed='yes'>. So
> >> to prevent setting the locklimit for hostdev, would we make a new
> >> setting like <hostdev managed='no-never-not-even-a-tiny-bit'>?
> Sigh. I
> >> *hate* trying to make config consistent :-/)
>
>
> Sounds tough indeed. I'd try to avoid negatively-named knobs. managed=no
> is simpler to perceive than unmanaged=yes.
Yeah, I don't like double negatives either, but since the default needs
to preserve existing behavior, and it's easier for a default setting to
be "no" rather than "yes"...,
Still, I'm not married to this name, just using it so that I can get
*something* going.
> It may be just me, but I'd
> even assume managed=no if the target dev name is specified. If libvirt
> manages the tap device, it should create a fresh one, too.
If we were starting from scratch, that's what I would prefer too. The
only problem is that we have to maintain existing behavior for current
users. The way that it works currently is that if you specify the tap
device name and it exists, then libvirt will still set the MAC address
and some IFF_* flags. If we suddenly stop doing that, then the existing
users' configs will be broken :-/
> But all of
> this is a big digression.
>
> >>
> >> (alternately, we could just automatically fail the attempt to
> set the
> >> lock limit in a graceful manner and allow the guest to continue)
> >>
> >
> > If that's something maintainers feel good about, I am all for it
> since
> > it simplifies the implementation.
>
> Well, after talking to Alex, I think that since a) libvirt only
> attempts
> to increase the limit after determining that it isn't already high
> enough, and b) if it isn't high enough and we can't increase it, then
> qemu is going to fail anyway, that c) we can't just fail gracefully and
> continue.
>
> So *somebody* needs to increase the limit, and if you want libvirt
> to be
> unprivileged, that means it needs to be you doing the increase. And
> since the amount that libvirt increases it is just some number based on
> oral folklore (and not on a specific value we learn by querying
> somewhere), I don't think it's worthwhile figuring out some way for
> libvirt to report it via an official API - that would end up just being
> this:
>
> "Hey, you know that number that you guys are just making a guess about
> based on some advice someone gave you once? Yeah, send me *that* number
> so I can claim to be basing my actions on real science instead of
> slightly educated voodoo! K THX BYE!" :-)
>
>
> Well, it's more like: "you know that voodoo you do to guess the number?
> If you ever educate yourself about it, e.g by querying qemu, send me
> *that* number. I'd rather not think about it ever again, BYE."
I can see the motivation. But that assumes that qemu knows the right
answer, and had a way to query it. If they ever do that, then maybe we
could think about supporting it, but until then reporting any value is
tantamount to lying.
>
>
> >
> >> BTW, I'm guessing that you use <hostdev> to assign the SRIOV VFs
> rather
> >> than <interface type='hostdev'>, correct? The latter would
> require that
> >> you have enough capabilities to set MAC addresses on the VFs
> (that's the
> >> entire point of using <interface type='hostdev'> instead of
> plain <hostdev>)
> >
> > Yes, we use <hostdev> exactly because interface sets MAC address: in
> > kubevirt scenario, the container that is running libvirtd has its own
> > network namespace and doesn't have access to PF to set the VF MAC
> > address on. Instead, we rely on CNI plugin that is running in the
> root
> > namespace context to configure the VF interface as needed. (I've
> > contributed custom MAC support to SR-IOV CNI plugin very recently.)
> >
> > Ihar
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> libvirt-users mailing list
> libvirt-users at redhat.com <mailto:libvirt-users at redhat.com>
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-users
>
More information about the libvirt-users
mailing list