netdev - Re: [E1000-devel] discussion questions: SR-IOV, virtualization, and bonding

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: <501B0A10.8030703@genband.com>
Date:	Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:15:28 -0600
From:	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
CC:	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] discussion questions: SR-IOV, virtualization, and
 bonding

On 08/02/2012 05:01 PM, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Chris Friesen<chris.friesen@...band.com>  wrote:

> 	Still, though, isn't "influence the guest's choice" pretty much
> satisified by having the VF interface go carrier down in the guest when
> the host wants it to?  Or are you thinking about more fine grained than
> that?

That was the first thing we started looking at.

It would actually be better technically (since it would use the 
back-channel between PF and VFs rather than needing an explicit virtual 
network link between host/guest) but it would require work in all the 
PF/VF drivers.  We'd need to get support from all the driver maintainers.

The main advantage of doing it in bonding is that we'd only need to 
modify the code in one place.

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