On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:04 -0800, Chris Wright wrote: > * Ben Hutchings (bhutchings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 09:34 -0800, Greg Rose wrote: > > > On 11/29/2011 9:19 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:35 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Maybe I missed something! > > [...] > > > >> If not, please explain what the new model *is*. > > > > > > The new model is to incorporate a VEB into the NIC. The current model > > > doesn't address any of the requirements of a VEB in the NIC and this > > > proposed set of patches allow us to set MAC filters for the *ports* on > > > the internal NIC VEB. Consider the PF and each of the VFs as just a > > > port on the VEB. We need the ability to set L2 filters (MAC, MC and > > > VLAN) for each of the ports on that VEB. There is no currently > > > supported method for doing this. So yes, this is a new model although > > > it's a fairly simple one. > > > > Explain precisely how the VEB changes the existing model. Explain how > > the existing MAC filter and VF filter APIs interact with port filters on > > the VEB. Refer to any relevant standards. > > I agree that it's confusing. Couldn't you simplify your ascii art > (hopefully removing hw assumptions about receive processing, and > completely ignoring vlans for the moment) to something like: > > |RX > v > +------------+-------------+ > | +------+--------+ | > | | RX MAC filter | | > | |and port select| | > | +---------------+ | > | /|\ | > | / | \ match 2| > | / v \ | > | /match \ | > | / 1 | \ | > | / | \ | > |match / | \ | > | 0 / | \ | > | v | v | > | | | | | > +----+--------+--------+---+ > | | | > PF VF 1 VF 2 > > And there's an unclear number of ways to update "RX MAC filter and port > select" table. > > 1) PF ndo_set_mac_addr > I expect that to be implicit to match 0. > > 2) PF ndo_set_rx_mode > Less clear, but I'd still expect these to implicitly match 0 > > 3) PF ndo_set_vf_mac > I expect these to be an explicit match to VF N (given the interface > specifices which VF's MAC is being programmed). I'm not sure whether this is supposed to implicitly add to the MAC filter or whether that has to be changed too. That's the main difference between my models (a) and (b). There's also PF ndo_set_vf_vlan. > 4) VF ndo_set_mac_addr > This one may or may not be allowed (setting MAC+port if the VF is owned > by a guest is likely not allowed), but would expect an implicit VF N. > > 5) VF ndo_set_rx_mode > Same as 4) above. So this is where we are today. > 6) PF or VF? ndo_set_rx_filter_addr > The new proposal, which has an explicit VF, although when it's VF_SELF > I'm not clear if this is just the same as 5) above? > > Have I missed anything? Any physical port can be bridged to a mixture of guests with and without their own VFs. Packets sent from a guest with a VF to the address of a guest without a VF need to be forwarded to the PF rather than the physical port, but none of the drivers currently get to know about those addresses. Packets sent from a guest with a VF to the address of another guest with a VF need to be forwarded similarly, but the driver should be able to infer that from (3). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
