netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] nfp: offload LAG for tc flower egress

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, 24 May 2018 15:01:33 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] nfp: offload LAG for tc flower egress

On Thu, 24 May 2018 22:26:03 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Jakub Kicinski
> <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2018 20:04:56 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:  
> 
> >> Does this apply also to non-uplink representors? if yes, what is the use case?
> >>
> >> We are looking on supporting uplink lag in sriov switchdev scheme - we refer to
> >> it as "vf lag" -- b/c the netdev and rdma devices seen by the VF are actually
> >> subject to HA and/or LAG - I wasn't sure if/how you limit this series
> >> to uplink reprs  
> >
> > I don't think we have a limitation on the output port within the LAG.
> > But keep in mind in our devices all ports belong to the same eswitch/PF
> > so bonding uplink ports is generally sufficient, I'm not sure VF
> > bonding adds much HA.  IOW AFAIK we support VF bonding because HW can do
> > it easily, not because we have a strong use case for it.  
> 
> To make it clear, vf lag is code name for uplink lag, I think we want
> to say that we provide the VM a lagged VF, anyway, again, the lag is
> done on the uplink reps not on the vf reps.

Ah, ack, same use case here!

> Unlike the uplink port which is physical one, the vf vport is virtual
> one, what could be the benefit to bond two vports?

I'm not sure what it could be :)  We can also bond an uplink and a VF!
All outputs on the nfp are working same, so why limit ourselves if we
can do it? :)