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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 7 Dec 2014 20:08:47 +0000
From:	Yuval Mintz <>
To:	Eli Cohen <>
CC:	"" <>,
	David Miller <>,
	linux-pci <>,
	netdev <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	Donald Dutile <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC] pci: Control whether VFs are probed on

>>>Use a parameter to pci_enable_sriov to control that policy, and modify
>>>all current callers such that they retain the same functionality.
>> What's the end-game here? How eventually would this be controlled?

>You can probe any VF at the hypervisor through sysfs files
>(bind/unbind). You can also pass them through to a VM. Nothing

If you're not planning on adding a logic to set this, why do we need to
add a parameter to pci_enable_sriov() - given that all callers use the
exact same logic?
[And I don't really think we'd want different devices to behave differently
by default; That would be confusing for users.]

>>>Use a one shot flag on struct pci_device which is cleared after the
>>>first probe is ignored so subsequent attempts go through.
>> Does a one-shot flag suffice? E.g., consider assigning a VF to VM and
>> than shutting down the VM. Assuming this feature is disabled,
>> the VF didn't appear on the hypervisor prior to the assignment but
>> will appear after its shutdown.

>Sorry, I don't follow you here. Please clarify.

>To be clear, the functionality proposed here is really one shot. It
>just prevents calling probe once; besides that nothing changes.

What I meant is that device is unbinded after initial probe,
But in the scenario I've stated above, the VF will become binded once
it's returned to the hypervisor.
Now, I understand that what you're trying to achieve - but my question
is whether what you're REALLY trying to achieve is the ability to have VFs
which would only be binded to VMs and never to hypervisor [by default]?--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists