netdev - Re: New commands to configure IOV features

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:	Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:13:42 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
To:	Yuval Mintz <yuvalmin@...adcom.com>
CC:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	Greg Rose <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: New commands to configure IOV features

On 06/26/2012 05:21 AM, Yuval Mintz wrote:
> On 05/07/2012 06:16 PM, Greg Rose wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 May 2012 14:17:54 +0300
>> Yuval Mintz <yuvalmin@...adcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've tried to figure out if there was a standard interface
>>> (ethtool/iproute) through which a user could configure the number
>>> of vfs in his system.
>>>
>>> I've seen the RFC suggested in
>>> http://markmail.org/thread/qblfcv7zbxsxp7q6, and
>>> http://markmail.org/thread/fw54dcppmxuxoe6n, but failed to see any
>>> later references to it (commits or further discussion on this topic).
>>>
>>> How exactly are things standing with these RFCs? Were they abandoned?
>> The only way to configure the number of VFs continues to be through the
>> max_vfs module parameter.  I've got a patch to do it through ethtool
>> sitting on the back burner but due to other requirements of my day job
>> I've not been able to work on it since last fall.
>>
>> - Greg
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> If I want to pick the RFCs and add support for configuring the number of
> VFs - do you think ethtool's the right place for such added support?
>
> I'm asking since as far as I can see, ethtool (today) doesn't contain any
> features related to virtual functions.
>
> Thanks,
> Yuval

I think the issue is that any class of PCI device could theoretically
support SR-IOV.  For example there could be a storage controller out
there that supports spawning VFs, and an ethtool solution wouldn't work
for a device like that.  Personally what I would like to see is a
solution that is more focused on the PCI side of the network adapters
instead of the network side when it comes to enabling VFs.

Thanks,

Alex
--
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