[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240305115450.577c161e@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 11:54:50 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mateusz Pacuszka
<mateuszx.pacuszka@...el.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
Lukasz Plachno <lukasz.plachno@...el.com>, Jakub Buchocki
<jakubx.buchocki@...el.com>, Pawel Kaminski <pawel.kaminski@...el.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Michal Swiatkowski
<michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>, Mateusz Polchlopek
<mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Pawel
Chmielewski" <pawel.chmielewski@...el.com>, Jesse Brandeburg
<jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net 0/5] ice: LLDP support for VFs
On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 01:50:03 +0100 Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> For RX: match on Ethertype and mirror, every trusted VF should be able to scan
> neighbors.
>
> For TX this is more complicated and is done not through eswitch, but through
> modifying security options, so do not think this would work with tc. So private
> flags are the best option? Our requirements say only a single VSI can transmit
> LLDP.
It is doable theoretically, tho, right? Driver can detect that all
eswitch VF/PF ports but one have a "drop LLDP" rule and update the
security option correctly?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists