On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 06:22:03PM +0800, Ka-Cheong Poon wrote: > On 10/7/20 7:16 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 04:38:45PM +0800, Ka-Cheong Poon wrote: > > > On 10/6/20 8:46 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 05:36:32PM +0800, Ka-Cheong Poon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Kernel modules should not be doing networking unless commanded to by > > > > > > > > userspace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is still not clear why this is an issue with RDMA > > > > > > > connection, but not with general kernel socket. It is > > > > > > > not random networking. There is a purpose. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a problem with sockets too, how do the socket users trigger > > > > > > their socket usages? AFAIK all cases originate with userspace > > > > > > > > > > A user starts a namespace. The module is loaded for servicing > > > > > requests. The module starts a listener. The user deletes > > > > > the namespace. This scenario will have everything cleaned up > > > > > properly if the listener is a kernel socket. This is not the > > > > > case with RDMA. > > > > > > > > Please point to reputable code in upstream doing this > > > > > > > > > It is not clear what "reputable" here really means. If it just > > > means something in kernel, then nearly all, if not all, Internet > > > protocols code in kernel create a control kernel socket for every > > > network namespaces. That socket is deleted in the per namespace > > > exit function. If it explicitly means listening socket, AFS and > > > TIPC in kernel do that for every namespaces. That socket is > > > deleted in the per namespace exit function. > > > > > > It is very common for a network protocol to have something like > > > this for protocol processing. It is not clear why RDMA subsystem > > > behaves differently and forbids this common practice. Could you > > > please elaborate the issues this practice has such that the RDMA > > > subsystem cannot support it? > > > > Just curious, are we talking about theoretical thing here or do you > > have concrete and upstream ULP code to present? > > > As I mentioned in a previous email, I have running code. > Otherwise, why would I go to such great length to find > out what is missing in the RDMA subsystem in supporting > kernel namespace usage. So why don't you post this running code? Thanks > > > > -- > K. Poon > ka-cheong.poon@xxxxxxxxxx > >
