netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] virtio_net: Extend virtio to use VF datapath when available

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: <20171221021450-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 02:15:31 +0200
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        alexander.duyck@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] virtio_net: Extend virtio to use VF datapath when
 available

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 02:33:34PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:40:36 -0800, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> > +static int virtio_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this,
> > +			       unsigned long event, void *ptr)
> > +{
> > +	struct net_device *event_dev = netdev_notifier_info_to_dev(ptr);
> > +
> > +	/* Skip our own events */
> > +	if (event_dev->netdev_ops == &virtnet_netdev)
> > +		return NOTIFY_DONE;
> 
> I wonder how does this work WRT loop prevention.  What if I have two
> virtio devices with the same MAC, what is preventing them from claiming
> each other?  Is it only the check above (not sure what is "own" in
> comment referring to)?

I expect we will add a feature bit (VIRTIO_NET_F_MASTER) and it will
be host's responsibility not to add more than 1 such device.

> I'm worried the check above will not stop virtio from enslaving hyperv
> interfaces and vice versa, potentially leading to a loop, no?  There is
> also the fact that it would be preferable to share the code between
> paravirt drivers, to avoid duplicated bugs.
> 
> My suggestion during the previous discussion was to create a paravirt
> bond device, which will explicitly tell the OS which interfaces to
> bond, regardless of which driver they're using.  Could be some form of
> ACPI/FW driver too, I don't know enough about x86 FW to suggest
> something fully fleshed :(