On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 12:17 PM Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 9:21 AM > > > > The idea is to introduce filters on the new virtio switch object for tx > > > and rx > > both. > > > > It can be done in this way for sure but the question is why it must be done > > in > > this way. > This option because it is in use by very big and mature eco system of > multiple sw stacks, kernel subsystem, drivers, and nics for several years now. > > > A drawback of using switch is that it introduces dependencies. > > > Feature is not a dependency. :)
Well, I meant you need a switch in order to let the IP filter work then. > > > > A virtio switch object can be part of a existing virtio device or a new > > > virtio > > device type in itself. > > > > That's fine. > > > > > > > > Xuan, > > > As we discussed, since the owner device packets also needs to be > > > filtered, potentially outside of the owner device itself, > > > > This seems the admin request out of the scope of virtio. > > > Not really, it could be virto switch device that manage PF also. > At that point, there may be two functions, PF and switching PF, switching PF > filters the traffic of the PF. That's fine. But such filtering needs to be done in a switch specific way not via the admin command/virtqueue. Thanks > > Anyways, I am just not finding it useful enough at current point in time for > us as far mature alternatives exist that users are comfortable with. > I would like to listen to Xuan if they really have use case for having > switching PF as virtio object or not. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
