On 4/11/2016 3:12 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 02:33:45AM +0300, Dan Jurgens wrote: > >> Currently there is no way to provide granular access control to an Infiniband >> fabric. By providing an ability to restrict user access to specific virtual >> subfabrics administrators can limit access to bandwidth and isolate users on >> the fabric. > > Do you actually have a concrete use case for this? We know the national labs are interested in this. > This seems superficially similar to netlabel, which I guess targets a > certain niche, but I'm really wondering with all the other container > patches if this was supposed to be done with namespaces... I can't speak to the goals of the other container patches. Netlabel can't label kernel bypassed packets. It can be used for IPoIB though. >> An Infiniband device (ibdev) is labeled by name and port number. There is a >> single access vector for ibdevs as well, called "smi". > > This is called an End Port (SMI is something else in the IB > spec). Please use the standard terminology. I see your point on the end port, I'll address this is the next series by updating the commit messages and replacing ibdev with ibendport. I don't understand where you think I've gone wrong on SMI. >From section 3.4.5.2: "Each node provides a Subnet Management Agent (SMA) that the SM access through a well known interface called the Subnet Management Interface (SMI)." Thanks, Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
