netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru device

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:   Tue, 27 Feb 2018 23:30:12 +0200
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a
 passthru device

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 09:49:59AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Now the question is: is it possible to merge the demands you have and
> the generic needs I described into a single solution? From what I see,
> that would be quite hard/impossible. So at the end, I think that we have
> to end-up with 2 solutions:
> 1) virtio_net, netvsc in-driver bonding - very limited, stupid, 0config
>    solution that works for all (no matter what OS you use in VM)
> 2) team/bond solution with assistance of preferably userspace daemon
>    getting info from baremetal. This is not 0config, but minimal config
>    - user just have to define this "magic bonding" should be on.
>    This covers all possible usecases, including multiple VFs, RDMA, etc.
> 
> Thoughts?

I think I agree. This RFC is trying to do 1 above.  Looks like we now
all agree 1 and 2 are not exclusive, both have place in the kernel. Is
that right?

-- 
MST