Using Remote Invalidation With RPC-Over-RDMA Transport Protocols
draft-cel-nfsv4-reminv-design-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Chuck Lever | ||
| Last updated | 2016-08-15 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-cel-nfsv4-reminv-design-02
Network File System Version 4 C. Lever
Internet-Draft Oracle
Intended status: Informational August 15, 2016
Expires: February 16, 2017
Using Remote Invalidation With RPC-Over-RDMA Transport Protocols
draft-cel-nfsv4-reminv-design-02
Abstract
Remote Invalidation relieves requesters/initiators of some of the
burden of preparing memory to be accessed remotely, thus reducing the
latency of transactions that require the use of explicit RDMA
operations. This document considers how to introduce Remote
Invalidation to RPC-over-RDMA transport protocols.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Remote Invalidation In Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Protocol Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
Like other RDMA-enabled storage protocols, RPC-over-RDMA Version Two
[I-D.cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two] employs a Read-Write transfer
model when using explicit RDMA operations to transfer data. This
means an RPC-over-RDMA requester exposes regions of its memory to an
RPC-over-RDMA responder, which then uses RDMA Read and Write
operations to transfer bulk data payloads.
In preparation for a bulk data transfer, a requester asks its RNIC to
assign a steering tag, or STag, to a region of memory containing the
data to be moved. At this time, access rights are granted that allow
the RNIC to access or update that memory on behalf of a remote peer.
This act is referred to as memory "registration." The RNIC uses this
STag to steer data to and from the registered memory region.
When data movement is complete, each STag is dissociated from its
memory region. This act is referred to as memory "invalidation." It
prevents further responder access to that memory region by revoking
its remote access rights. Invalidation should be done before RPC
applications on the requester are allowed access to memory that was
involved in an explicit RDMA operation.
Remote Invalidation is a technique by which an RDMA peer can request
that a remote RNIC invalidate an STag associated with memory on that
remote peer [RFC5042]. An RDMA consumer requests Remote Invalidation
by posting an RDMA Send With Invalidate Work Request in place of an
RDMA Send Work Request. RDMA Send With Invalidate is similar to RDMA
Send, but takes one additional argument: a single STag to be
invalidated by the RNIC that receives the sent message. An RDMA Send
message is transmitted with additional header information that
conveys the STag that is to be invalidated [RFC5040].
The benefit of Remote Invalidation is that an extra Work Request,
context switch, and interrupt to perform memory invalidation are not
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
required by the requester as part of handling the completion of an
RPC transaction. STag invalidation begins before the Receive
completes, thus invalidation is started (and completes) sooner. The
upshot is faster completion of RPC transactions that involve
registered memory.
This mechanism has the most impact when explicit RDMA operations are
needed to move moderate amounts of data. Invalidation latency is
quite small compared to the time it takes to convey a large payload
with an explicit RDMA operation. Small RPCs are already conveyed
entirely via RDMA Send, thus Remote Invalidation is unnecessary for
them. When the time it takes to invalidate a memory region is on the
same order as the time it takes to move the contents of that region,
Remote Invalidation has its greatest impact.
Remote Invalidation confers benefits similar to the benefits of
increasing the size of Send and Receive buffers. However, Remote
Invalidation does not incur the cost of maintaining a pool of large
Receive buffers on either the requester or responder. Moderate-sized
RPC payloads can be transferred without the usual costs of memory
registration. Requesters can rely on RDMA Write to structure their
Receive buffers without introducing additional latency.
There are some downsides, however. Remote Invalidation is not
available on all RNIC devices. And, Remote Invalidation does not
address the extra latency of using RDMA Read. This extra latency can
be eliminated using a large inline threshold for transmitting RPC
Calls.
The primary design considerations for the transport protocol are to
provide a mechanism to indicate when Remote Invalidation can be used
by the transport, and to provide selection criteria for choosing
which STag to invalidate remotely. Elements of the XDR definition of
the RPC-over-RDMA protocol must be altered to some degree, depending
on desired flexibility of operation, invasiveness of XDR changes, and
broadness of hardware support.
The purpose of this document is to explore generally how Remote
Invalidation can be introduced into the RPC-over-RDMA transport
protocol. This document does not attempt to propose a detailed
specification of any particular mechanism.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
2. General Requirements
2.1. Memory Management Extensions
Remote Invalidation was not available in the original RDMA Verbs API.
New verbs API objects were specified that include operations that
enable Remote Invalidation, now described in [IB]. The Verbs API
provides a capabilities flag, MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS, that indicates that
an RNIC can provide the new APIs and objects.
Only an STag that was registered using the FRWR mechanism, also only
available with MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS, may be invalidated remotely
[RFC5040].
RDMA Send With Invalidate is available only with MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS.
2.2. Registration Types
For the purposes of this discussion, there are two classes of STags.
Dynamically-registered STags are used in a single RPC, then
invalidated. Persistently-registered STags live longer than one RPC.
They are typically registered for the life of an RPC-over-RDMA
connection, and sometimes even longer.
In RPC-over-RDMA Version One, a requester may provide more than one
STag in the chunk lists of an RPC. It may provide any combination of
the following registration types in one RPC, any combination of these
in a series of RPCs on the same connection, or it may use some other
registration model.
Examples of persistently-registered STags include:
o The device's reserved DMA rkey
o An STag registered for a connection that doesn't change from RPC
to RPC (for a utility buffer, say)
o An STag registered for a fixed memory region that is updated after
each time it is advertised
o An STag covering a large single region that is utilized in small
segments by many RPCs
Examples of dynamically-registered STags include:
o An STag registered for a single RPC transaction using a non-FRWR
mechanism, then invalidated when the RPC is retired
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
o An STag registered for a single RPC transaction using the FRWR
mechanism, then invalidated when the RPC is retired
Among these examples, only dynamically-registered STags using the
FRWR mechanism may be invalidated remotely.
2.3. Selecting STags To Invalidate Remotely
Remote Invalidation protocol mechanisms come in different styles:
Fixed Protocol
The choice of which STag to invalidate remotely is fixed in the
protocol specification.
Responder's Choice
The responder chooses an STag to invalidate remotely from among
all the STags in incoming requests.
Requester's Choice
The requester chooses one or more STags that may be invalidated
remotely, indicating its choices in each request. The responder
chooses an STag to invalidate remotely from among the requester's
picks.
Outside of being told explicitly by the requester, there is no
mechanism by which a responder can determine how a requester-provided
STag was registered. Thus a requester that mixes persistently- and
dynamically-registered STags in one RPC, or mixes them across RPCs on
the same connection, cannot tolerate Responder's Choice.
2.4. Future Enhancements
There are two related enhancements that further reduce the effort
needed to invalidate STags associated with complex RPCs:
o The ability for one registered STag to represent a list of memory
regions that are not contiguous
o The ability to specify more than one remote STag in a single Work
Request to be remotely invalidated
At this time, the first mechanism has been implemented in at least
one RNIC on the market. The second is speculative.
Given support for registering non-contiguous memory regions with one
STag, when an RPC-over-RDMA requester constructs an RPC that has both
a Read list and a Write list, the requester has a choice:
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
o The requester can register a separate STag for each access mode
(one STag for memory regions needing read access, and one STag for
those needing write access) to provide good data security
o The requester can register a single STag with read and write
access enabled for the whole set of memory regions, to allow RDMA
Send With Invalidate to work optimally
Having the ability to remotely invalidate multiple STags at once
enables the combination of optimal performance and optimal security.
3. Remote Invalidation In Operation
When requester memory is registered for remote access, an RPC-over-
RDMA implementation could use Remote Invalidation by following these
steps:
1. The requester DMA-maps a memory region that will participate in
an RPC transaction, and registers an STag for that region.
2. The requester transmits the RPC Call, which also conveys the
STag, to the responder.
3. The responder processes the RPC transaction. The peer RNICs use
the STag to move RPC arguments or results.
4. The responder transmits the RPC Reply using an RDMA Send With
Invalidate Work Request, specifying the STag in the Work
Request's inv_handle field.
5. A Receive Work Request completes on the requester, carrying this
RPC reply, and reporting the invalidated STag.
6. The requester skips invalidation of the STag, then DMA-unmaps the
memory region associated with the STag.
The requester no longer needs to invalidate the STag involved with
this RPC. However, there are additional details that must be
resolved before the use of Remote Invalidation can commence.
3.1. Determining Remote Invalidation Support Status
An RDMA consumer (an Upper Layer Protocol implementation) that does
not support Remote Invalidation might not tolerate the use of RDMA
Send With Invalidate by the transport layer. Such a requester
performs Local Invalidation on STags that already happen to be
invalid, and in some cases this can result in protection errors or
other issues.
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
Thus, to avoid spurious connection termination, a responder must not
post an RDMA Send With Invalidate Work Request unless it is sure the
following three conditions are met:
o The requester's RNIC is prepared to receive the additional header
information associated with Remote Invalidation
o The requester has used FRWR to register STags it wants invalidated
remotely
o The requester is prepared to recognize remotely invalidated STags
and thus avoid invalidating them a second time
When all three of these conditions are true, a requester can report
positive Remote Invalidation support status to responders using an
Upper Layer Protocol mechanism. When a responder does not know the
requester's Remote Invalidation support status, it cannot use Remote
Invalidation without endangering the connection.
3.2. Selection Of Which STag To Invalidate Remotely
The RDMA Send With Invalidate Work Request invalidates only one STag.
RPC-over-RDMA requesters may register more than one STag to handle
the movement of payloads for a single RPC. Either the client will
have to specify which STag may be remotely invalidated, the protocol
will have to specify a fixed way to select which STag to invalidate,
or the responder will have to choose arbitrarily which STag to
remotely invalidate.
In some circumstances, requesters may wish to utilize STags during
transactions that are registered using a mechanism that does not
tolerate Remote Invalidation. For example, an STag that is the
requester's local DMA rkey should never be invalidated remotely. If
a responder attempts to invalidate a such an STag, the result is
undefined, but the connection can be terminated or other failures can
occur.
Even with Remote Invalidation enabled, requesters remain responsible
for ensuring all STags are invalid before RPC transactions complete.
To avoid leaving STags registered, a requester must be prepared for
the responder or the requester's own RNIC to have not invalidated any
of an RPC's STags. When there are multiple STags associated with a
single RPC, a requester must be prepared for any number of STags to
have been remotely invalidated, including zero.
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
3.3. Backward-Direction Operation
As of this writing, no current implementation supports direct data
placement in the backward-direction. However, existing protocol
specifications do not forbid it [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis]
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection]
[I-D.cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two].
When chunks are present in a backward-direction RPC request, Remote
Invalidation allows the responder to trigger invalidation of a
requester's STags as part of sending a reply, the same as in the
forward direction.
However, in the backward direction, the server acts as the requester,
and the client is the responder. The server's RNIC, therefore, must
support receiving an IETH, and the server must have registered the
STags with FRWR. Thus the server must indicate its Remote
Invalidation support status to the client (the opposite of forward
direction Remote Invalidation).
4. Protocol Elements
In this section, a number of protocol variations are considered.
These vary in functionality and invasiveness. Some may be
appropriate to use in combination.
4.1. Per Protocol Version Remote Invalidation
4.1.1. Description
When a higher protocol version number is negotiated, Remote
Invalidation is always enabled. This new protocol version would then
be usable only with RNICs that support Remote Invalidation. Both
peers assume that Remote Invalidation may be used in either
direction.
4.1.2. Similar Existing Implementations
SMB Direct [MS-SMBD]
4.1.3. Advantages
No XDR changes or protocol extensions are required.
Backward-direction use of Remote Invalidation is automatically
supported.
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
4.1.4. Disadvantages
The requester is not in control of which STags in an RPC may be
invalidated. Thus, a requester must not advertise STags which must
never be invalidated.
Other features and benefits of the new protocol version would not be
available when an implementation employs an RNIC that does not
support Remote Invalidation. In particular, RNICs that do not
support MEM_MGT_EXTENTIONS (i.e., FRWR) could not use the new
protocol version.
An extension or addition protocol version bump is required to
indicate support for transport-level mechanisms that can invalidate
multiple STags at once.
4.2. Per Connection Remote Invalidation
4.2.1. Description
At connection initiation time, messages are exchanged that indicate
each peer's Remote Invalidation support status. Without these
messages, peers assume Remote Invalidation is not supported.
4.2.2. Similar Existing Implementations
iSER [RFC7145]. Information is exchanged in RDMA-CM connection
requests to report an implementation's Remote Invalidation support
status.
4.2.3. Advantages
No changes to the base protocol XDR are required.
4.2.4. Disadvantages
Out-of-band messages are required to establish support status.
The requester is not in control of which STags in an RPC may be
invalidated. Thus, a requester must not advertise STags which must
never be invalidated.
To support backward-direction operation, the server must separately
indicate that it supports Remote Invalidation.
To enable support for multiple STag invalidation, this negotiation
protocol would have to be extended again to indicate when mechanisms
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
other than RDMA Send With Invalidate are supported by the requester's
RNIC.
4.3. Fixed Protocol Remote Invalidation
4.3.1. Description
No new field is introduced to the transport header. Protocol
specification determines how the responder chooses which STag is to
be invalidated remotely. Some other means is used to determine
whether Remote Invalidation can be used or not.
4.3.2. Similar Existing Implementations
iSER [RFC7145]. Two STags fields appear in each request: one
advertises Read data and one advertises Write data. When only one
STag is used in the request, it may be invalidated remotely. One
both STags are used, only the Read STag may be invalidated remotely.
4.3.3. Advantages
No changes to the base protocol XDR are required.
4.3.4. Disadvantages
Out-of-band messages are required to establish support status.
The requester is not in control of which STags in an RPC may be
invalidated. Thus, a requester must not advertise STags which must
never be invalidated.
This mechanism may not work well for transport protocols that allow
multiple read and write STags.
4.4. Per RPC Remote Invalidation (Single STag)
4.4.1. Description
A field is added to the transport header that contains an STag which
may be invalidated by the responder. A special value can be chosen
to mean "no STag may be invalidated" for use by requesters that have
no support for Remote Invalidation.
4.4.2. Similar Existing Implementations
None.
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
4.4.3. Advantages
A requester may advertise STags that cannot be invalidated remotely,
as long as they are never marked as "may invalidate."
No out-of-band support status negotiation is needed.
Backward-direction RPCs can each indicate whether a backward-
direction requester desires or does not support Remote Invalidation.
The responder needs no special logic or assumptions to choose the
STag to invalidate remotely.
4.4.4. Disadvantages
Either the base RPC-over-RDMA header XDR definition is altered, or a
protocol extension is required.
Requesters transmit a little extra data per RPC, making RPC-over-RDMA
messages slightly more costly to send and parse.
This mechanism cannot support the remote invalidation of multiple
STags at once.
4.5. Per RPC Remote Invalidation (Multiple STags)
4.5.1. Description
A new data structure is added to the transport header that indicate
which STags which may be invalidated by the responder.
This information might appear as a new field in the RDMA segment data
structure, as each segment has its own STag field. The field
indicates whether or not that STag may be invalidated by the
responder. Perhaps that field is a boolean, though in XDR, a boolean
is a full 32 bits.
Or, this information could appear in the header as an array of STags,
to reduce the amount of extra data contained in the RPC-over-RDMA
header. Zero array elements means the requester does not support
Remote Invalidation.
4.5.2. Similar Existing Implementations
NVMe/Fabrics [NVME]. Each STag in a request has an associated bit
flag that indicates whether the responder is allowed to invalidate it
remotely.
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
4.5.3. Advantages
A requester may advertise STags that cannot be invalidated remotely,
as long as they are never marked as "may invalidate."
The mechanism allows a requester to request either invalidation of
multiple STags at once, or to choose one STag to invalidate remotely.
No out-of-band support status negotiation is needed.
Each backward-direction RPC can indicate whether a backward-direction
requester desires or does not support Remote Invalidation.
The responder needs no special logic or assumptions to choose the
STag to invalidate remotely.
4.5.4. Disadvantages
The RPC-over-RDMA header XDR definition is possibly extensively
altered.
Requesters transmit extra data per RPC. However, it is limited to
only one or two 32-bit words in most cases.
4.6. Inter-RPC Remote Invalidation
4.6.1. Description
As a subfeature of support for Remote Invalidation, it is possible
that a responder can remotely invalidate an STag (using RDMA Send
With Invalidate) that refers to registered memory being used in the
Read chunk of a different RPC. Such Remote Invalidation would be
requested only after the RDMA Read has already been completed.
This can be useful when a responder is replying to an RPC via an
inline message, but notices there are other RPC replies pending that
have multiple STags, some of which are Read chunks.
4.6.2. Similar Existing Implementations
None
4.6.3. Advantages
This is one way to enable remote invalidation of multiple STags per
RPC, using only RDMA Send With Invalidate.
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
4.6.4. Disadvantages
Additional requester and responder complexity would be required to
keep track of STags.
5. Recommendations
5.1. General Considerations
When constructing a protocol to support Remote Invalidation, one of
these designs, or some combination of them, can be chosen.
In no particular order, the design priorities are:
o Do not prevent the efficient operation of RNICs that do not handle
RDMA Send With Invalidate
o Introduce as little impact on header XDR and header length as
possible, to keep collateral performance impact low
o Enable support for Remote Invalidation when explicit RDMA is used
in backward-direction RPCs.
An important question is whether the base RPC-over-RDMA Version Two
protocol should support Remote Invalidation, whether Remote
Invalidation support should be carried entirely on the shoulders of
protocol extensions, or whether some combination of the two is best.
Upper Layer Protocols will likely always be responsible for some
degree of signaling Remote Invalidation capabilities, as long as
innovation continues at the transport layer (e.g., new RDMA
operations that enable Remote Invalidation). Future hardware
capabilities are perpetually hazy, limiting the ability to design
long-lived protocol support for them. Lastly, it is difficult to
estimate how long the industry must continue to support less capable
devices.
5.2. Analysis And Discussion
All things being equal, making no changes to the base XDR definition
has great appeal. If the mechanism in Section 4.2 can be broadly
effective at enabling Remote Invalidation in the current set of RPC-
over-RDMA implementations, it would be the proper choice.
Unfortunately, among current RPC-over-RDMA client implementations,
there is one client that can immediately use a per-connection style
protocol, and one that can use only a per-RPC style protocol such as
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
Section 4.4. A third known client resides in user space and is thus
incapable of using the FRWR registration mechanism.
Because there is a wide latitude of implementation choice already
allowed by the RPC-over-RDMA transport protocol, the author's
preference is to implement Section 4.4. The target STag can be added
to the rpcrdma2_chunk_lists data structure as a single field. No
further changes or extensions are needed.
In the longer term, the requester appears to be in the better
position to determine which STag may be invalidated remotely. With
this mechanism, the requester can choose based on which STags may be
invalidated remotely, or may use criteria based on the strengths of
its RNIC. For instance, choosing the largest registered memory
region might be beneficial in some cases.
Allowing the responder to select from among several choices does not
seem to bring additional value, and burdens the responder with
additional header parsing costs for each chunk-bearing RPC reply.
Furthermore, the ability to request Remote Invalidation of multiple
STags in a single Work Request appears to be somewhat distant. It
would require additional Upper Layer Protocol mechanisms to
distinguish the new mechanism from using RDMA Send With Invalidate,
which we are not in a position to design today. Thus it does not
seem worth the extra implementation and protocol complexity of having
the requester provide a list of STags for the responder to choose
from.
As an alternative to modifying the XDR definition for the RDMA_MSG
and RDMA_NOMSG message types, a new RDMA message type could be
introduced in RPC-over-RDMA Version Two that provides similar
functionality to RDMA_MSG and RDMA_NOMSG but adds one or more new
fields. This has the advantage of leaving the Version One-compatible
parts of the Version Two XDR definition unchanged. It is an open
question whether this introduces more complexity to existing
implementations than adding new fields to RDMA_MSG and RDMA_NOMSG.
However, this approach is similar to the introduction of READ_PLUS in
the specification of NFSv4.2 [I-D.ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2].
Allowing the feature described in Section 4.6 is likely to increase
the complexity of responder and especially requester implementations,
as they would have to remember invalidated STags independently of RPC
completions. Because it does not require any XDR changes, it could
easily be enabled in a future protocol extension. The author's
preference is to forbid this behavior in the initial specification,
but allow for a future extension to introduce it.
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
5.3. Example Remote Invalidation Protocol
As an example of how to proceed, the simplest approach would replace
struct rpcrdma2_chunk_lists (as defined in
[I-D.cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two]) with the following:
<CODE BEGINS>
struct rpcrdma2_chunk_lists {
enum msg_type rdma_direction;
u32 rdma_inv_handle;
struct rpcrdma2_read_list *rdma_reads;
struct rpcrdma2_write_list *rdma_writes;
struct rpcrdma2_write_chunk *rdma_reply;
};
<CODE ENDS>
The following language describes how to utilize the new field:
The requester sets the value of the rdma_inv_handle field to the
value of any one of the rdma_handle fields in the RPC-over-RDMA
header of the RPC call that may be invalidated remotely. If the
RPC-over-RDMA header of the RPC call contains no rdma_handles that
may be invalidated remotely, the requester MUST set the value of
the rdma_inv_handle field to zero. The requester MUST NOT set the
value of the rdma_inv_handle field to the value of an rdma_handle
that cannot be invalidated remotely.
As part of forming the RPC-over-RDMA header for the reply, the
responder copies the value of the rdma_inv_handle field from the
RPC-over-RDMA header of the matching RPC call. If the
rdma_inv_handle field in the RPC-over-RDMA header of an RPC call
contains zero, the responder MUST NOT use RDMA Send With
Invalidate to transmit the matching RPC reply. Otherwise, the
responder SHOULD use RDMA Send With Invalidate to transmit the
reply to this RPC, specifying the value in the RPC-over-RDMA
header's rdma_inv_handle field as the Work Request's inv_rkey.
The responder MUST NOT specify any other value in the Work
Request's inv_rkey field.
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations for this document.
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
7. Security Considerations
Remote Invalidation metadata is conveyed in the clear in RPC-over-
RDMA headers. This does not expose any new information to attackers.
A man-in-the-middle can alter Remote Invalidation metadata while it
is in transit. Requesters are prepared to handle the case where
responders have not invalidated any STags associated with an RPC. An
attacker can cause other STags in flight to be invalidated before the
responder is finished with the associated memory. Or an attacker can
replace the "to-be invalidated" STag with an STag in the same RPC
that should not be invalidated remotely. Any of these might cause
loss of connection, or other failures.
A connection relationship is required to exist between a requester
and a responder. The requester's RNIC has associated a Protection
Domain with that connection. The STag on the requester to be
invalidated is associated with that Protection Domain. This protects
against arbitrary invalidation of STags by network nodes not part of
the connection.
Further discussion appears in [RFC5042].
8. Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Sagi Grimberg, Christoph Hellwig, Dave
Noveck, and Tom Talpey. Special thanks go to nfsv4 Working Group
Chair Spencer Shepler and nfsv4 Working Group Secretary Thomas Haynes
for their support.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two]
Lever, C. and D. Noveck, "RPC-over-RDMA Version Two
Protocol", draft-cel-nfsv4-rpcrdma-version-two-01 (work in
progress), June 2016.
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis]
Lever, C., Simpson, W., and T. Talpey, "Remote Direct
Memory Access Transport for Remote Procedure Call, Version
One", draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-07 (work in progress),
May 2016.
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection]
Lever, C., "Bi-directional Remote Procedure Call On RPC-
over-RDMA Transports", draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-
bidirection-05 (work in progress), June 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5040] Recio, R., Metzler, B., Culley, P., Hilland, J., and D.
Garcia, "A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
Specification", RFC 5040, DOI 10.17487/RFC5040, October
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5040>.
[RFC5042] Pinkerton, J. and E. Deleganes, "Direct Data Placement
Protocol (DDP) / Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
(RDMAP) Security", RFC 5042, DOI 10.17487/RFC5042, October
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5042>.
[RFC7145] Ko, M. and A. Nezhinsky, "Internet Small Computer System
Interface (iSCSI) Extensions for the Remote Direct Memory
Access (RDMA) Specification", RFC 7145,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7145, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7145>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2]
Haynes, T., "NFS Version 4 Minor Version 2", draft-ietf-
nfsv4-minorversion2-41 (work in progress), January 2016.
[IB] InfiniBand Trade Association, "InfiniBand Architecture
Specifications", <http://www.infinibandta.org>.
[MS-SMBD] Microsoft Corporation, "SMB Remote Direct Memory Access
(RDMA) Transport Protocol Specification", July 2016.
[NVME] NVM Express, Inc., "NVM Express Revision 1.2.1", July
2016.
Author's Address
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Remote Invalidation And RPC-over-RDMA August 2016
Charles Lever
Oracle Corporation
1015 Granger Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
USA
Phone: +1 734 274 2396
Email: chuck.lever@oracle.com
Lever Expires February 16, 2017 [Page 18]