[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200323225009.GA1839@ziepe.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 19:50:09 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Yuval Avnery <yuvalav@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
"leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
"andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com" <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>,
"michael.chan@...adcom.com" <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
Aya Levin <ayal@...lanox.com>,
Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn@...lanox.com>,
"dchickles@...vell.com" <dchickles@...vell.com>,
"sburla@...vell.com" <sburla@...vell.com>,
"fmanlunas@...vell.com" <fmanlunas@...vell.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
"oss-drivers@...ronome.com" <oss-drivers@...ronome.com>,
"snelson@...sando.io" <snelson@...sando.io>,
"drivers@...sando.io" <drivers@...sando.io>,
"aelior@...vell.com" <aelior@...vell.com>,
"GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com" <GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com>,
"grygorii.strashko@...com" <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
mlxsw <mlxsw@...lanox.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
Mark Zhang <markz@...lanox.com>,
"jacob.e.keller@...el.com" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
Alex Vesker <valex@...lanox.com>,
"linyunsheng@...wei.com" <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
"lihong.yang@...el.com" <lihong.yang@...el.com>,
"vikas.gupta@...adcom.com" <vikas.gupta@...adcom.com>,
"magnus.karlsson@...el.com" <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] current devlink extension plan for NICs
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:31:16PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Right, that is the point. It's the host admin that wants the new
> entity, so if possible it'd be better if they could just ask for it
> via devlink rather than some cloud API. Not that I'm completely opposed
> to a cloud API - just seems unnecessary here.
The cloud API provides all the permissions checks and security
elements. It cannot be avoided.
If you try to do it as you say then it is weird. You have to use the
cloud API to authorize the VM to touch a certain network, then the VM
has to somehow take that network ID and use devlink to get a netdev
for it. And the cloud side has to protect against a hostile VM sending
garbage along this communication channel.
vs simply host plugging in the correct network fully operational when
the cloud API connects the VM to the network.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists