[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231030142542.6640190b@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 14:25:42 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: longli@...uxonhyperv.com
Cc: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2] hv_netvsc: Mark VF as slave before exposing it to
user-mode
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:59:50 -0700 longli@...uxonhyperv.com wrote:
> When a VF is being exposed form the kernel, it should be marked as "slave"
> before exposing to the user-mode. The VF is not usable without netvsc running
> as master. The user-mode should never see a VF without the "slave" flag.
>
> This commit moves the code of setting the slave flag to the time before VF is
> exposed to user-mode.
Can you give a real example in the commit message of a flow in user
space which would get confused by seeing the VF netdev without
IFF_SLAVE?
You're only moving setting IFF_SLAVE but not linking the master,
is there no code which would assume that if SLAVE is set there
is a master?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists