netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6 V6 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port management (was iovnl)

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, 13 May 2010 23:23:15 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>
CC:	Scott Feldman <scofeldm@...co.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 V6 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port
 management (was iovnl)

Chris Wright wrote:
> * Patrick McHardy (kaber@...sh.net) wrote:
>> Chris Wright wrote:
>>> * Patrick McHardy (kaber@...sh.net) wrote:
>>>> Chris Wright wrote:
>>>>> * Patrick McHardy (kaber@...sh.net) wrote:
>>>>>>> +	} else  {
>>>>>>> +		err = rtnl_vf_port_fill_nest(skb, dev, -1);
>>>>>> What does -1 mean?
>>>>> It means no VFs.  Could be made a macro/enum constant
>>>> Why call rtnl_vg_port_fill_nest at all in that case? It even
>>>> calls the ndo_get_vf_port() callback.
>>> For the case where port profile is set on net dev that does not
>>> have VFs (e.g. the enic case in 2/2).
>> Thanks for the explanation. I guess a enum constant would be nice
>> to have. But the bigger problem is the asymetrical message
>> parsing/construction.
> 
> Yeah, what would you like to do there?  I think we have to keep the
> existing, just break out symmtetic set/get?

Sure, that would be fine. I'll have a closer look at the exact
message layout tommorrow, its getting late here.

>> BTW:
>>
>>> +enum {
>>> +	VF_PORT_REQUEST_PREASSOCIATE = 0,
>>> +	VF_PORT_REQUEST_PREASSOCIATE_RR,
>>> +	VF_PORT_REQUEST_ASSOCIATE,
>>> +	VF_PORT_REQUEST_DISASSOCIATE,
>>> +};
>> Do multiple of these commands have to be issued in order to
>> reach "associated" state? That also wouldn't fit into the
>> rtnetlink design, which contains state, not commands.
> 
> It's optional.  At the very least, you need 1 associate/disassociate for
> each logical link up/down.
> 
> For VM migration or (perhaps failover modes) you can optionally issue a
> preassociate.  Preassociate has 2 flavors.  One which is purely advisory,
> another which will reserve resources on the switch.  These all reprsent
> state transitions in the switch, but only associate should allow final
> logical link up and traffic to flow.

I see, thanks. That seems fine.
--
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