[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <556ED1E6.8050907@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:07:34 +0300
From: Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
CC: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>,
Guy Shapiro <guysh@...lanox.com>,
Shachar Raindel <raindel@...lanox.com>,
Yotam Kenneth <yotamke@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 for-next 00/12] Add network namespace support in the
RDMA-CM
On 28/05/2015 18:46, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:22:36PM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
>> wouldn't care if they share the "QP number namespace", etc. RDMA CM
>> ports are different because they are chosen by the applications, but
>> they map directly to the network namespace, so they don't require their
>> own namespace.
>
> Different containers should have restricted access to the PKey and GID
> tables, and the presence device itself. Just like in the SRIOV
> case.
>
> That is what the 'RDMA Namespace' would control.
We were thinking here that there is a room for an RDMA cgroup. It would
limit the amount of RDMA resources a container can use. It can also be
used for the restrictions you mentioned, but maybe they are more
suitable for a namespace. I'm not sure. In RoCE for instance, a
restricted access to the GID table can be derived from the network
namespace directly, but perhaps not in InfiniBand.
Regards,
Haggai
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists