netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6 V6 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port management (was iovnl)

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: <20100513211847.GE30483@x200.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 13 May 2010 14:18:47 -0700
From:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>,
	Scott Feldman <scofeldm@...co.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 V6 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port
 management (was iovnl)

* Patrick McHardy (kaber@...sh.net) wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
> > * Patrick McHardy (kaber@...sh.net) wrote:
> >> Chris Wright wrote:
> >>> * Patrick McHardy (kaber@...sh.net) wrote:
> >>>>> +	} else  {
> >>>>> +		err = rtnl_vf_port_fill_nest(skb, dev, -1);
> >>>> What does -1 mean?
> >>> It means no VFs.  Could be made a macro/enum constant
> >> Why call rtnl_vg_port_fill_nest at all in that case? It even
> >> calls the ndo_get_vf_port() callback.
> > 
> > For the case where port profile is set on net dev that does not
> > have VFs (e.g. the enic case in 2/2).
> 
> Thanks for the explanation. I guess a enum constant would be nice
> to have. But the bigger problem is the asymetrical message
> parsing/construction.

Yeah, what would you like to do there?  I think we have to keep the
existing, just break out symmtetic set/get?

> BTW:
> 
> > +enum {
> > +	VF_PORT_REQUEST_PREASSOCIATE = 0,
> > +	VF_PORT_REQUEST_PREASSOCIATE_RR,
> > +	VF_PORT_REQUEST_ASSOCIATE,
> > +	VF_PORT_REQUEST_DISASSOCIATE,
> > +};
> 
> Do multiple of these commands have to be issued in order to
> reach "associated" state? That also wouldn't fit into the
> rtnetlink design, which contains state, not commands.

It's optional.  At the very least, you need 1 associate/disassociate for
each logical link up/down.

For VM migration or (perhaps failover modes) you can optionally issue a
preassociate.  Preassociate has 2 flavors.  One which is purely advisory,
another which will reserve resources on the switch.  These all reprsent
state transitions in the switch, but only associate should allow final
logical link up and traffic to flow.

thanks,
-chris

--
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