netdev - Re: igb bandwidth allocation configuration

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, 16 Sep 2009 08:53:48 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
To:	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...taire.com>
CC:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: igb bandwidth allocation configuration

Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> The interface for all of this would make sense as part of a virtual 
>> ethernet switch control which is the way I am currently leaning on all 
>> this.
> Yes, you can say that out of the per VF <mac, vlan-id, priority, rate> 
> tuple I mentioned, except for the mac, the other parameters actually 
> belong to the egress flow of the virtual switch port this VF is 
> connected to. So the vswitch actually signs the packet with vlan+pbits 
> and enforces the rate. Now vswitch can be software based, or hardware 
> NIC based.

Even something such as MAC address would make sense for a virtual 
ethernet switch configuration in that you could restrict unicast ingress 
traffic for the VF to a specific address much like you would do on a 
regular L2 switch.

> Now, I assume there may be NICs which will let you configure the 
> <vlan-id, priority, rate> as part of the their virtual switch config, 
> but others, e.g
> the 82576 as an example, and following our discussion, will let you do 
> that for the VF, in the VF driver which as you said may run the guest OS 
> where we can't control it...

I think you may be a bit confused.  The configuration for the VFs would 
be part of the PF via the virtual ethernet switch control.  As a result 
it is only the PF which needs to be running on the host.

Thanks,

Alex
--
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