On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 03:55:48PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 08:35:56PM +0000, Daniel Jurgens wrote: > > > I think to control access to a VLAN for RoCE there would have to > > labels for GIDs, since that's how you select which VLAN to use. > > Since people are talking about using GIDs for containers adding a GID > constraint for all technologies makes sense to me.. > > But rocev1 (at least mlx4) does not use vlan ids from the GID, the > vlan id is set directly in the id, so it still seems to need direct > containment. I also see vlan related stuff in the iwarp providers, so > they probably have a similar requirement. > > > required. RDMA device handle labeling isn't granular enough for > > what I'm trying to accomplish. We want users with different levels > > of permission to be able to use the same device, but restrict who > > they can communicate with by isolating them to separate partitions. > > Sure, but maybe you should use the (device handle:pkey/vlan_id) as your > labeling tuple not (Subnet Prefix, pkey) Would "device handle" here specify the port? Ira > > Jason > -- > 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 -- 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
