Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:20:01 +0100 From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Enabling VIMAGE in GENERIC Message-ID: <5469D9E1.2060400@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <1423616F-F44D-47E5-8595-DE862DC04464@bsdimp.com> References: <CAG=rPVccq7R5%2Bcbm6nR1WCZDM=-xwwkmF=cw8PCuk58oHPA-gQ@mail.gmail.com> <1423616F-F44D-47E5-8595-DE862DC04464@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17-11-2014 12:02, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Nov 17, 2014, at 12:46 AM, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> PROPOSAL ========== I would like to get feedback on the following >> proposal. In the head branch (CURRENT), I would like to enable >> VIMAGE with this commit: >> >> >> PATCH ====== >> >> Index: sys/conf/NOTES >> =================================================================== >> >> --- sys/conf/NOTES (revision 274300) >> +++ sys/conf/NOTES (working copy) @@ -784,8 +784,8 @@ device >> mn # Munich32x/Falc54 Nx64kbit/sec cards. >> >> # Network stack virtualization. -#options VIMAGE -#options >> VNET_DEBUG # debug for VIMAGE +options VIMAGE +options >> VNET_DEBUG # debug for VIMAGE >> >> # # Network interfaces: >> >> >> >> I would like to enable VIMAGE for the following reasons: >> >> REASONS ======== >> >> (1) VIMAGE cannot be enabled off to the side in a separate library >> or kernel module. When enabled, it is a kernel ABI incompatible >> change. This has impact on 3rd party code such as the kernel >> modules which come with VirtualBox. So the time to do it in CURRENT >> is now, otherwise we can't consider doing it until FreeBSD-12 >> timeframe, which is quite a while away. >> >> (2) VIMAGE is used in some 3rd party products, such as FreeNAS. >> These 3rd party products are mostly happy with VIMAGE, but >> sometimes they encounter problems, and FreeBSD doesn't see these >> problems because it is disabled by default. >> >> (3) Most of the major subsystems like ipfw and pf have been fixed >> for VIMAGE, and the only way to shake out the last few issues is to >> make it the default and get feedback from the community. ipfilter >> still needs to be VIMAGE-ified. >> >> >> (4) Not everyone uses bhyve. FreeBSD jails are an excellent >> virtualization platform for FreeBSD. Jails are still very popular >> and performant. VIMAGE makes jails even better by allowing >> per-jail network stacks. >> >> (5) Olivier Cochard-Labbe has provided good network performance >> results in VIMAGE vs. non-VIMAGE kernels: >> >> >> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2014-October/040091.html >> >> >> (6) Certain people like Vitaly "wishmaster" <artemrts@ukr.net> have been >> running VIMAGE jails in a production environment for quite a while, >> and would like to see it be the default. >> >> >> ACTION PLAN =========== >> >> (1) Coordinate/communicate with portmgr, since this has kernel >> ABI implications >> >> (2) Work with clusteradm@, and try to get a test instance of one >> of the PF firewalls in the cluster working with a VIMAGE enabled >> kernel. >> >> (3) Take a pass through http://wiki.freebsd.org/VIMAGE/TODO and >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=vimage%20or%20vnet >> >> and try to clean things up. Get help from net@ developers to do >> this. > > And if these don’t get cleaned up? > >> (4) Take a pass on trying to VIMAGE-ify ipfilter. I'll need help >> from the ipfilter maintainers for this and some net@ developers. > > And if this doesn’t happen? > >> (5) Enable VIMAGE by default in CURRENT on January 5, 2015. This >> will *not* be enabled in STABLE. >> >> What do people think? > > How do you plan to address the problems seen by FreeNAS in #2 above? > I don’t see that in the action plan. Without it, we’re enabling an > option that has know, serious issue making 11 potentially a more > unstable release. Hi Warner, I think I understand your critique, but then on the other hand I wonder where the reluctance is.... As I read it, things are going to be enabled in CURRENT only (for the time). Which is exactly for the reasons you worry about: Is it going to be reliable enough?? But for that it needs exposure... So I would expect it to be turned off as a default IF things are not in a stable state that warrants a default enabling of the options. Things need to move forward, and taking this step is going to be required.. Otherwise I see a big risk of bit-rot somewhere down in the dungeons. --Willem Jan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5469D9E1.2060400>