netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 2/2] add ndo_set_port_profile op support for enic dynamic vnics

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:31:38 -0700
From:	Scott Feldman <scofeldm@...co.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	<davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<chrisw@...hat.com>, Jens Osterkamp <Jens.Osterkamp@....de>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 2/2] add ndo_set_port_profile op support for
 enic dynamic vnics

On 4/29/10 8:48 AM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de> wrote:

> I believe Chris is the one that was pushing most for having a single interface
> for both VDP/LLDPAD and enic.
> While I now understand your reasons for doing it in firmware and requiring the
> kernel interface in addition to the user interface, my doubts on whether VDP
> and your protocol should be part of the same interface are increasing.
> 
> While I'm convinced that you can make it work for both now, the alternative
> to split the two may turn out to be cleaner. We'd still be able to do
> either of the two in kernel or user space. Using iproute2 syntax to describe
> this again, it would mean an interface like
> 
>    ip iov set  port-profile DEVICE [ base BASE-DEVICE ] name PORT-PROFILE
>                              [ host_uuid HOST_UUID ]
>                      [ client_name CLIENT_NAME ]
>                                       [ client_uuid CLIENT_UUID ]
>    ip iov set  vsi { associate | pre-associate | pre-associate-rr }
> BASE-DEVICE
>                                       vsi MGR:VTID:VER
>                                       mac LLADDR [ vlan VID ]
>                                       client_uuid CLIENT_UUID
> 
>    ip iov del  port_profile DEVICE      [ base BASE-DEVICE ]
>    ip iov del  vsi          BASE-DEVICE [ mac LLADDR [ vlan VID ] ]
>        [ client_uuid CLIENT_UUID ]
> 
>    ip iov show port_profile DEVICE      [ base BASE-DEVICE ]
>    ip iov show vsi          BASE-DEVICE [ mac LLADDR [ vlan VID ] ]
> [ client_uuid CLIENT_UUID ]
> 
> You would obvioulsy only implement the kernel support for the port-profile
> stuff as callbacks, because no driver yet does VDP in the kernel, but we
> should
> have a common netlink header that defines both variants.
> 
> Chris, any opinion on this interface as opposed to the combined one?
> Either one should work, but splitting it seems cleaner to me.

I'm OK with either version.  Your latest does seem cleanest.  Let's let
Chris be the final decider.  Chris, door #1 or door #2?

-scott

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html