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:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:08:39 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.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>,
        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

Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:41:49PM CET, kubakici@...pl wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:16:21 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> Basically we need some sort of PCI or PCIe topology mapping for the
>> devices that can be translated into something we can communicate over
>> the communication channel. 
>
>Hm.  This is probably a completely stupid idea, but if we need to
>start marshalling configuration requests/hints maybe the entire problem
>could be solved by opening a netlink socket from hypervisor?  Even make
>teamd run on the hypervisor side...

Interesting. That would be more trickier then just to fwd 1 genetlink
socket to the hypervisor.

Also, I think that the solution should handle multiple guest oses. What
I'm thinking about is some generic bonding description passed over some
communication channel into vm. The vm either use it for configuration,
or ignores it if it is not smart enough/updated enough.