[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111130233926.GF29071@x200.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:39:26 -0800
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>
To: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
Greg Rose <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roprabhu@...co.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"dragos.tatulea@...il.com" <dragos.tatulea@...il.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>, "mst@...hat.com" <mst@...hat.com>,
"mchan@...adcom.com" <mchan@...adcom.com>,
"dwang2@...co.com" <dwang2@...co.com>,
"shemminger@...tta.com" <shemminger@...tta.com>,
"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
"benve@...co.com" <benve@...co.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 0/6 v4] macvlan: MAC Address filtering
support for passthru mode
* Sridhar Samudrala (sri@...ibm.com) wrote:
> On 11/30/2011 3:00 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
> > physical port
> > |
> >+------------+------------+
> >| +-----+ |
> >| | VEB | |
> >| +-----+ |
> >| / | \ |
> >| / | \ |
> >| / | \ |
> >+-----+------+------+-----+
> > | | |
> > PF VF 1 VF 2
> > / | |
> > +---+---+ VM4 +---+---+
> > | sw | |macvtap|
> > | switch| +---+---+
> > +-+-+-+-+ |
> > / | \ VM5
> > / | \
> >VM1 VM2 VM3
> >
> >This has VMs 1-3 hanging of the PF via a linux bridge (traditional hv
> >switching), VM4 directly owning VF1 (pci device assignement), and VM5
> >indirectly owning VF2 (macvtap passthrough, that started this whole
> >thing).
> >
> >So, I'm understanding you saying that VM4 or VM4 sending a packet to VM1
> >goes in to VEB, out PF, and into linux bridging code, rigth? At which
> >point the PF is in promiscuous mode (btw, same does not work if bridge is
> >attached to VF, at least for some VFs, due to lack of promiscuous mode).
> >
> >>Packets sent from a guest with a VF to the address of another guest with
> >>a VF need to be forwarded similarly, but the driver should be able to
> >>infer that from (3).
> >Right, and that works currently for the case where both guests are like
> >VM4, they directly own the VF via PCI device assignement. But for VM4
> >to talk to VM5, VF3 is not in promiscuous mode and has a different MAC
> >address than VM5's vNIC. If the embedded bridge does not learn, and
> >nobody programmed it to fwd frames for VM5 via VF3...
> I think you are referring to VF2. There is no VF3 in your picture.
*sigh* (also meant 'VM4 or VM5' up above, not 'VM4 or VM4')...
> In macvtap passthru mode, VF2 will be set to the same mac address as VM5's
> MAC. So VM4 should be be able to talk to VM5.
yes (i think macvtap in bridging or vepa mode w/ single VM has that issue,
not passthru)
> >I believe this is what Roopa's patch will allow. The question now is
> >whether there's a better way to handle this?
> My understanding is that Roopa's patch will allow setting additional mac
> addresses to
> VM5 without the need to put VF5 in promiscous mode.
Thanks for your corrections Sridar.
cheers,
-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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists