netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Control VF link state

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: <5192978A.30300@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 May 2013 12:59:06 -0700
From:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	amirv@...lanox.com, ronye@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Control VF link state

On 5/14/2013 10:12 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 00:48 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Ben Hutchings
>> <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 02:17 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 16:45 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>>>> Here's a suggestion for API and implementation that lets the admin to
>>>>>> configure
>>>>>> the link state of the VF / SRIOV eSwitch vPORT. Basically, it has three
>>>>>> states
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Auto -        the VF link state will reflect the PF link state
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Enable - VF link stat will be always up, traffic from VF to VF can
>>>>>>         work even if PF link is down.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems like it would be useful to implement these two options on the PF as well.
>>>>
>>>> You mean that PF <--> VF communication on the same node can be made to
>>>> work even when the physical link is down? this is a bit problematic to
>>>> model/implement I think. Generally speaking it makes things easier to
>>>> grasp if PF is considered to be the uplink of the eSwitch whos link is
>>>> 1:1 as the physical link, but need to think that a bit more.
>>>
>>> Yeah.  In some ways it could be better for a PF driver to create two net
>>> devices, one which acts as a vswitch port and one which bypasses it (if possible).
>>
>> That's interesting approach, any rough thoughts what you think it would by us?
>
> There are many attributes that could differ between the external port
> (or ports - there could be more than one on the same integrated switch)
> and the PF's switch port, including at least:
>
> - Link state
> - Packet counters
> - MTU
> - VLAN filtering
>
> So long as we conflate these two (or more) ports into a single net
> device, there will be confusion about what the attributes mean.
>

One more example is all the control protocols we run over these
ports, LLDP being one example. Its not really clear who your peer
is when we have only a single netdevice. Is it the embedded bridge
or the peer of the external port?

.John
--
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