[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191113130651.GA2176@nanopsycho>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:06:51 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ariel Levkovich <lariel@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 8/8] net/mlx5: Add vf ACL access via tc flower
Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:41:24AM CET, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:13:53 +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> From: Ariel Levkovich <lariel@...lanox.com>
>>
>> Implementing vf ACL access via tc flower api to allow
>> admins configure the allowed vlan ids on a vf interface.
>>
>> To add a vlan id to a vf's ingress/egress ACL table while
>> in legacy sriov mode, the implementation intercepts tc flows
>> created on the pf device where the flower matching keys include
>> the vf's mac address as the src_mac (eswitch ingress) or the
>> dst_mac (eswitch egress) while the action is accept.
>>
>> In such cases, the mlx5 driver interpets these flows as adding
>> a vlan id to the vf's ingress/egress ACL table and updates
>> the rules in that table using eswitch ACL configuration api
>> that is introduced in a previous patch.
>
>Nack, the magic interpretation of rules installed on the PF is a no go.
For the record, I don't like this approach either. The solution is
out there, one just have to properly implement bridge offloading.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists