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]
Date:   Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:36:32 -0800
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        achiad shochat <achiad.mellanox@...il.com>,
        Achiad Shochat <achiad@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [RFC PATCH net-next v2 1/2] virtio_net: Introduce
 VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP feature bit

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:04 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:34:37PM -0800, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
>> On 1/22/2018 4:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:27:40PM -0800, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
>> > > > > You could probably
>> > > > > even handle the Tx queue selection via a simple eBPF program and map
>> > > > > since the input for whatever is used to select Tx should be pretty
>> > > > > simple, destination MAC, source NUMA node, etc, and the data-set
>> > > > > shouldn't be too large.
>> > > > That sounds interesting. A separate device might make this kind of setup
>> > > > a bit easier.  Sridhar, did you look into creating a separate device for
>> > > > the virtual bond device at all?  It does not have to be in a separate
>> > > > module, that kind of refactoring can come later, but once we commit to
>> > > > using the same single device as virtio, we can't change that.
>> > > No. I haven't looked into creating a separate device. If we are going to
>> > > create a new
>> > > device, i guess it has to be of a new device type with its own driver.
>> > Well not necessarily - just a separate netdev ops.
>> > Kind of like e.g. vlans share a driver with the main driver.
>>
>> Not sure what you meant by vlans sharing a driver with the main driver.
>> IIUC, vlans are supported via 802.1q driver and  creates a netdev of type
>> 'vlan'
>> with vlan_netdev_ops
>
> But nothing prevents a single module from registering
> multiple ops.

Just to clarify, it seems like what you are suggesting is just adding
the "master" as a separate set of netdev ops or netdevice and to have
virtio spawn two network devices, one slave and one master, if the
BACKUP bit is set. Do I have that right?

I am good with the code still living in the virtio driver and
consolidation with other similar implementations and further
improvement could probably happen later as part of some refactor.

Thanks.

- Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ