Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Why is this even a good idea? > If you are looking for reasons using mutlicast module in ipoib is good, I > would > say blocking unpriviledged userspace from joining IPoIB GID and snoopig on all > mcast traffic sounds like a better idea. BTW, Sean, I think this is something > we need for the ucma multicast part to go in. I would imagine kernel > components > could set some kind of flag on mcast join to make them exclusive. > API currently does not allow for that.
http://openib.org/pipermail/openib-general/2006-March/019147.html Why is it a bad idea? The architecture allows this. However, none of the proposed patches allows a userspace app to join an ipoib multicast group. And an application that talks directly to the SA via MADs puts us no worse off than before. > And why the rush? Is the new module used at all yet? > Let's see it get some use before switching a basic component over. This module was added to svn in April. The request was to begin the process for queuing it to 2.6.20, which is likely 2-3 more months out. I hardly call that a rush. > Finally, the patch in question also seems to introduce more cleanups and > such. It would be less controversial if it was just an API change. The cleanups are part of the change. Once ib_join_multicast() has been invoked, ib_free_multicast() must be called exactly once. Proper state tracking for this is required. - Sean _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
