netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 2/2] add ndo_set_port_profile op support for enic dynamic vnics

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: <201005011436.49879.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Sat, 1 May 2010 14:36:49 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Scott Feldman <scofeldm@...co.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...hat.com,
	Jens Osterkamp <Jens.Osterkamp@....de>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 2/2] add ndo_set_port_profile op support for enic dynamic vnics

On Friday 30 April 2010, Scott Feldman wrote:
> >    ip iov set  port-profile DEVICE [ base BASE-DEVICE ] name PORT-PROFILE
> >                              [ host_uuid HOST_UUID ]
> >                      [ client_name CLIENT_NAME ]
> >                                       [ client_uuid CLIENT_UUID ]
> >    ip iov set  vsi { associate | pre-associate | pre-associate-rr }
> > BASE-DEVICE
> >                                       vsi MGR:VTID:VER
> >                                       mac LLADDR [ vlan VID ]
> >                                       client_uuid CLIENT_UUID
> > 
> >    ip iov del  port_profile DEVICE      [ base BASE-DEVICE ]
> >    ip iov del  vsi          BASE-DEVICE [ mac LLADDR [ vlan VID ] ]
> >        [ client_uuid CLIENT_UUID ]
> > 
> >    ip iov show port_profile DEVICE      [ base BASE-DEVICE ]
> >    ip iov show vsi          BASE-DEVICE [ mac LLADDR [ vlan VID ] ]
> > [ client_uuid CLIENT_UUID ]
> > 
> > You would obvioulsy only implement the kernel support for the port-profile
> > stuff as callbacks, because no driver yet does VDP in the kernel, but we
> > should
> > have a common netlink header that defines both variants.
> > 
> > Chris, any opinion on this interface as opposed to the combined one?
> > Either one should work, but splitting it seems cleaner to me.
> 
> I haven't seen Chris's response, but it seems vger was down for awhile, so
> maybe it's coming.  Assuming we go for the split design, we're still talking
> about using RTM_SETLINK/RTM_GETLINK/RTM_DELLINK for these netlink msgs?  Or
> are you suggesting by your cmd syntax that we return to
> RTM_SETIOV/RTM_GETIOV like in the first iovnl patch?  RTM_SET/GET/DELLINK is
> probably simplier, cleaner patch.

In either case (split or combined), I would prefer the separate IOV
commands. The reason for this is that when support is not in the kernel,
it allows a cleaner separation between what's (always) handled in the
kernel and what's (potentially) done in user space.

	Arnd
--
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