netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a passthru 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]

Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:19:24 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        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>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Siwei Liu <loseweigh@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] Enable virtio_net to act as a backup for a
 passthru device

Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:59:04AM CET, stephen@...workplumber.org wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:30:12 -0800
>Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> > Again, I undertand your motivation. Yet I don't like your solution.
>> > But if the decision is made to do this in-driver bonding. I would like
>> > to see it baing done some generic way:
>> > 1) share the same "in-driver bonding core" code with netvsc
>> >    put to net/core.
>> > 2) the "in-driver bonding core" will strictly limit the functionality,
>> >    like active-backup mode only, one vf, one backup, vf netdev type
>> >    check (so noone could enslave a tap or anything else)
>> > If user would need something more, he should employ team/bond.  
>
>Sharing would be good, but netvsc world would really like to only have
>one visible network device.

Why do you mind? All would be the same, there would be just another
netdevice unused by the vm user (same as the vf netdev).