> On 20 Mar 2019, at 12:25, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 01:25:58AM +0200, Liran Alon wrote: >> >> >>> On 19 Mar 2019, at 23:19, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 08:46:47AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:38:06 +0200 >>>> Liran Alon <liran.alon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> b.3) cloud-init: If configured to perform network-configuration, it attempts to configure all available netdevs. It should avoid however doing so on net-failover slaves. >>>>> (Microsoft has handled this by adding a mechanism in cloud-init to blacklist a netdev from being configured in case it is owned by a specific PCI driver. Specifically, they blacklist Mellanox VF driver. However, this technique doesn’t work for the net-failover mechanism because both the net-failover netdev and the virtio-net netdev are owned by the virtio-net PCI driver). >>>> >>>> Cloud-init should really just ignore all devices that have a master device. >>>> That would have been more general, and safer for other use cases. >>> >>> Given lots of userspace doesn't do this, I wonder whether it would be >>> safer to just somehow pretend to userspace that the slave links are >>> down? And add a special attribute for the actual link state. >> >> I think this may be problematic as it would also break legit use case >> of userspace attempt to set various config on VF slave. >> In general, lying to userspace usually leads to problems. > > I hear you on this. So how about instead of lying, > we basically just fail some accesses to slaves > unless a flag is set e.g. in ethtool. > > Some userspace will need to change to set it but in a minor way. > Arguably/hopefully failure to set config would generally be a safer > failure. Once userspace will set this new flag by ethtool, all operations done by other userspace components will still work. E.g. Running dhclient without parameters, after this flag was set, will still attempt to perform DHCP on it and will now succeed. Therefore, this proposal just effectively delays when the net-failover slave can be operated on by userspace. But what we actually want is to never allow a net-failover slave to be operated by userspace unless it is explicitly stated by userspace that it wishes to perform a set of actions on the net-failover slave. Something that was achieved if, for example, the net-failover slaves were in a different netns than default netns. This also aligns with expected customer experience that most customers just want to see a 1:1 mapping between a vNIC and a visible netdev. But of course maybe there are other ideas that can achieve similar behaviour. -Liran > > Which things to fail? Probably sending/receiving packets? Getting MAC? > More? > >> If we reach >> to a scenario where we try to avoid userspace issues generically and >> not on a userspace component basis, I believe the right path should be >> to hide the net-failover slaves such that explicit action is required >> to actually manipulate them (As described in blog-post). E.g. >> Automatically move net-failover slaves by kernel to a different netns. >> >> -Liran >> >>> >>> -- >>> MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
