netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next] docs: net: add an explanation of VF (and other) Representors

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: <2578c4c4-03c0-1618-e53c-e271ca9c50dd@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2022 16:20:56 +0100
From:   Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To:     Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>, ecree@...inx.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@....com
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        jacob.e.keller@...el.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, andy@...yhouse.net, saeed@...nel.org,
        jiri@...nulli.us, snelson@...sando.io, simon.horman@...igine.com,
        alexander.duyck@...il.com, rdunlap@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next] docs: net: add an explanation of VF (and
 other) Representors

On 18/08/2022 10:56, Marcin Szycik wrote:
> On 15-Aug-22 16:22, ecree@...inx.com wrote:
> 
>> Just as each port of a Linux-controlled
>> +switch has a separate netdev, so each virtual function has one.  When the system
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but this sentence seems a bit confusing. Maybe:
> "Just as each port of a Linux-controlled switch has a separate netdev, each virtual
> function has one."?

Kuba wrote this paragraph and tbh it makes sense to me.
But how about "Just as each port of a Linux-controlled switch has a
 separate netdev, so does each virtual function."?

>> +As a simple example, if ``eth0`` is the master PF's netdevice and ``eth1`` is a
>> +VF representor, the following rules::
>> +
>> +    tc filter add dev eth1 parent ffff: protocol ipv4 flower \
>> +        action mirred egress redirect dev eth0
>> +    tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ipv4 flower \
>> +        action mirred egress mirror dev eth1
> 
> Perhaps eth0/eth1 names could be replaced with more meaningful names, as it's easy
> to confuse them now. How about examples from above (e.g. PF -> eth4, PR -> eth4pf1vf2rep)?
> Or just $PF_NETDEV, $PR_NETDEV.

Yeah, I can replace them with $VARIABLES.

-ed