> On Oct 8, 2020, at 12:08 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 07:08:42PM +0800, Ka-Cheong Poon wrote: >> Note that namespace does not really play a role in this "rogue" reasoning. >> The init_net is also a namespace. The "rogue" reasoning means that no >> kernel module should start a listening RDMA endpoint by itself with or >> without any extra namespaces. In fact, to conform to this reasoning, the >> "right" thing to do would be to change the code already in upstream to get >> rid of the listening RDMA endpoint in init_net! > > Actually I think they all already need user co-ordination? > > - NFS, user has to setup and load exports > - Storage Targets, user has to setup the target > - IPoIB, user has to set the link up > > etc. > > Each of those could provide the anchor to learn the namespace. My two cents, and worth every penny: I think the NFSD listener is net namespace-aware. I vaguely recall that a user administrative program (maybe rpc.nfsd?) requests an NFS service listener in a particular namespace. Should work the same for sockets and listener QPs. For RPC-over-RDMA, a struct net argument is passed in from the generic code: 66 static struct svcxprt_rdma *svc_rdma_create_xprt(struct svc_serv *serv, 67 struct net *net); 68 static struct svc_xprt *svc_rdma_create(struct svc_serv *serv, 69 struct net *net, 70 struct sockaddr *sa, int salen, 71 int flags); And that struct net is then passed on to rdma_create_id(). -- Chuck Lever
