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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:11:07 -0700 From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> To: Narendra_K@...l.com CC: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, john.r.fastabend@...el.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Add phys_port identifier to struct net_device and export it to sysfs On 06/19/2013 12:34 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 00:23 +0530, Narendra_K@...l.com wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@...arflare.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:07 PM >>> To: K, Narendra >>> Cc: john.fastabend@...il.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org; >>> john.r.fastabend@...el.com >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Add phys_port identifier to struct >>> net_device and export it to sysfs >>> >>> On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 07:29 -0700, Narendra_K@...l.com wrote: >>> [...] >>>> 2. show_phys_port function sees a consistent value of >>>> 'netdev->phys_port.port_id and netdev->phys_port.port_id_len ' if >>>> another execution path changes the value of 'netdev->phys_port.port_id >>>> and netdev->phys_port.port_id_len ' with write_lock(&dev_base_lock) >>>> held (similar to how dev->operstate is being changed). >>> [...] >>> >>> If the physical port ID can change dynamically (I hadn't thought of that, but an >>> embedded switch could support such reconfiguration) then any such change >>> also needs to be announced through rtnetlink. Actually, I think the value >>> needs to be included in rtnetlink information anyway. >>> >> >> Ok. Thank you Ben. I had not thought about this scenario. I was >> thinking about the reason to hold the dev_base_lock. Do you think >> points 1 and 2 are correct reason to hold the dev_base_lock ? > > I think so. > >> If correct, I think the 'show_broadcast' function also needs to be >> fixed as it is not holding the lock. > > I think the broadcast address should never change during the lifetime of > a device, so it doesn't need the lock. That might not be true for all > layer 2 protocols though. > > Ben. > Also, do you think this will be primarily useful for partitioning devices that expose multiple physical functions? Or do you see a use case for SR-IOV with virtual functions as well. The pyhs_port attribute provides a common interface for both cases which is good I suppose in the VF case however the host can already learn this. I gather from your original post here that you are aware of all this. quoting: > I was thinking about the scenario of VF0 and VF1 coming from PF0 in the host > Network Controller 1 being direct assigned to a KVM guest via VTD and netdevices > from VF0 and VF1 being bonded in the guest. Assuming that physical port number used > by VF0 and VF1 is 1, additional information is needed to identify if port number 1 > is on Network controller 1 or Network controller 2. (In the host we could use > PCI b/d/f to differentiate two Network Controllers). I think it is similar to > hybrid guest acceleration on the VF assignment aspect. I'm curious though why would the host/libvirt assign two VFs from the same PF to a guest like this? Is this really a host mis-configuration that you want a way to detect in the guest? Thanks, John -- John Fastabend Intel Corporation -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists