netdev - Re: [RFC] hv_netvsc: automatically name slave VF network device

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: <20171219142452.0f708189@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:24:52 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [RFC] hv_netvsc: automatically name slave VF network device

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:06:59 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > > > I assume you mean the modern application is udev, and it works
> > > > > but the name is meaningless because it based of synthetic PCI
> > > > > information. The PCI host adapter is simulated for pass through
> > > > > devices. Names like enp12s0.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since every passthrough VF device on Hyper-V/Azure has a matching
> > > > > synthetic network device with same mac address. It is best to
> > > > > have the relationship shown in the name.        
> > > > 
> > > > How about we make the VF drivers expose "vf" as phys_port_name?
> > > > Then systemd/udev should glue that onto the name regardless of
> > > > how the VF is used.      
> > > 
> > > One of the goals was not to modify in any way other drivers (like VF).    
> > 
> > Why?  Do you have out-of-tree drivers you can't change or some such?  
> 
> This needs to work on enterprise distributions; plus it is not good
> practice to introduce random changes into partners like Mellanox
> drivers.

Are we talking about Linux or Windows kernel here?  I don't think
this requires hypervisor changes?  The notion of a "partner" and
changing drivers by people who are not employed by a vendor being 
bad practice sounds entirely foreign to me.

If we agree that marking VF interfaces is useful (and I think 
it is) then we should mark them always, not only when they are 
enslaved to a magic bond.  And the natural way of doing that 
seems to be phys_port_name.