netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 0/6 v4] macvlan: MAC Address filtering support for passthru mode

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:	Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:24:49 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Roopa Prabhu <roprabhu@...co.com>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, chrisw@...hat.com, sri@...ibm.com,
	dragos.tatulea@...il.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de,
	gregory.v.rose@...el.com, mchan@...adcom.com, dwang2@...co.com,
	shemminger@...tta.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, kaber@...sh.net,
	benve@...co.com
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 0/6 v4] macvlan: MAC Address filtering
 support for passthru mode

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 08:30:24AM -0800, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/17/11 4:15 PM, "Ben Hutchings" <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
> 
> > Sorry to come to this rather late.
> > 
> > On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 23:55 -0800, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> > [...]
> >> v2 -> v3
> >> - Moved set and get filter ops from rtnl_link_ops to netdev_ops
> >> - Support for SRIOV VFs.
> >>         [Note: The get filters msg (in the way current get rtnetlink handles
> >>         it) might get too big for SRIOV vfs. This patch follows existing
> >> sriov 
> >>         vf get code and tries to accomodate filters for all VF's in a PF.
> >>         And for the SRIOV case I have only tested the fact that the VF
> >>         arguments are getting delivered to rtnetlink correctly. The code
> >>         follows existing sriov vf handling code so rest of it should work
> >> fine]
> > [...]
> > 
> > This is already broken for large numbers of VFs, and increasing the
> > amount of information per VF is going to make the situation worse.  I am
> > no netlink expert but I think that the current approach of bundling all
> > information about an interface in a single message may not be
> > sustainable.
> 
> Yes agreed. I have the same concern.

So it seems that we need to extend the existing interface to allow
tweaking filters per VF. Does it need to block this
patchset though? After all, we'll need to support the existing
interface indefinitely, too.

-- 
MST
--
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