On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:44:40AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:24:56 +0300 >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:04:06AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >I will NAK patches to change to common code for netvsc especially the >> > > > >three device model. MS worked hard with distro vendors to support >> > > > >transparent >> > > > >mode, ans we really can't have a new model; or do backport. >> > > > > >> > > > >Plus, DPDK is now dependent on existing model. >> > > > >> > > > Sorry, but nobody here cares about dpdk or other similar oddities. >> > > >> > > The network device model is a userspace API, and DPDK is a userspace >> > > application. >> > >> > It is userspace but are you sure dpdk is actually poking at netdevs? >> > AFAIK it's normally banging device registers directly. >> > >> > > You can't go breaking userspace even if you don't like the application. >> > >> > Could you please explain how is the proposed patchset breaking >> > userspace? Ignoring DPDK for now, I don't think it changes the userspace >> > API at all. >> > >> >> The DPDK has a device driver vdev_netvsc which scans the Linux network >> devices >> to look for Linux netvsc device and the paired VF device and setup the >> DPDK environment. This setup creates a DPDK failsafe (bondingish) instance >> and sets up TAP support over the Linux netvsc device as well as the Mellanox >> VF device. >> >> So it depends on existing 2 device model. You can't go to a 3 device model >> or start hiding devices from userspace. > > Okay so how does the existing patch break that? IIUC does not go to > a 3 device model since netvsc calls failover_register directly. > >> Also, I am working on associating netvsc and VF device based on serial number >> rather than MAC address. The serial number is how Windows works now, and it >> makes >> sense for Linux and Windows to use the same mechanism if possible. > > Maybe we should support same for virtio ... > Which serial do you mean? From vpd? > > I guess you will want to keep supporting MAC for old hypervisors? > > It all seems like a reasonable thing to support in the generic core.
That's the reason why I chose explicit identifier rather than rely on MAC address to bind/pair a device. MAC address can change. Even if it can't, malicious guest user can fake MAC address to skip binding. -Siwei > > -- > MST --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
