netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 1/2] Add ndo_set_vf_port

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]

Message-ID: <8966E338-1C9C-43D9-B6A3-A44349E7EE18@qlogic.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:33:04 -0700
From:	Anirban Chakraborty <anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Scott Feldman <scofeldm@...co.com>,
	"Rose, Gregory V" <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"chrisw@...hat.com" <chrisw@...hat.com>,
	"Williams, Mitch A" <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 1/2] Add ndo_set_vf_port_profile


On Apr 27, 2010, at 5:35 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Tuesday 27 April 2010, Scott Feldman wrote:
>>> Yes, I believe that's there today:
>>> 
>>>    NLA_PUT_U32(skb, IFLA_NUM_VF, dev_num_vf(dev->dev.parent));
>>> 
>>> The number of VFs is returned in RTM_GETLINK.  But, it's only returned if:
>>> 
>>>    if (dev->netdev_ops->ndo_get_vf_config && dev->dev.parent)
>>> 
>>> For my proposal, I'll need to return IFLA_NUM_VF unconditionally so callers
>>> can get num VFs.
>> 
>> Hmmm...seems IFLA_NUM_VF assumes a PCI device supporting SR-IOV when it uses
>> dev_num_vf().  I think a better option would have been to query the device
>> for the number of VFs, without assuming SR-IOV or even PCI.
>> 
>> I see a ndo_get_num_vf() coming...
> 
> Shouldn't the number of registered port profiles be totally independent of
> the number of virtual functions?
> 
> Any of the VFs could multiplex multiple guests using macvlan, which means you
> need to register each guest separately, not each VF.
> 
> Anything that ties port profiles to VFs seems fundamentally flawed AFAICT,
> at least when we want to extend this to adapters that don't do it in firmware.

Correct me if I am wrong. Shouldn't the port profile be tied to the physical NICs which are essentially
PCI functions (be it PF or VF)? I'd think that a port profile would have configuration settings for all the
physical NICs (PF/VF) of a specific physical port of the adapter. I liked the idea of querying the device
for number of VFs as it will cover both SR-IOV and non SR-IOV PCI functions.

thanks,
-Anirban--
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