-----Original Message-----
From: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org]
On Behalf Of Anirban Chakraborty
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:01 PM
To: Rose, Gregory V
Cc: David Miller; netdev; Ben Hutchings; Kirsher, Jeffrey T;
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next PATCH 3/4] ethtool: Add new set commands


On Jul 28, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Rose, Gregory V wrote:

quoted

quoted

From: Anirban Chakraborty [mailto:anirban.chakraborty@qlogic.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 12:04 PM
To: Rose, Gregory V
Cc: David Miller; netdev; Ben Hutchings; Kirsher, Jeffrey T
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next PATCH 3/4] ethtool: Add new set commands


If I understood it correctly, you are trying to set/unset spoofing on

per

quoted

quoted

eth interface,  which could be a PF on the hypervisor or a pci

passthru-ed

quoted

quoted

VF in the linux guest.  There are other security features that one

could set

quoted

quoted

for a port on the VF (lets call it vport),  e.g. setting a port VLAN ID

for

quoted

quoted

a VF and specifying if the VF (VM) is allowed to send tagged/untagged
packets, setting a vport in port mirroring mode so that the PF can

monitor

quoted

quoted

the traffic on a VF,  setting a vport in promiscuous mode etc.

Does it make sense to try to use ip link util to specify all these

parameters,

quoted

quoted

since ip link already does the  job of setting VF properties and VF

port

quoted

quoted

profile?

Any thoughts?

Sure, that's a possibility too.  I was considering ethtool for this

since MAC addresses and VLANs are fairly specific to Ethernet whereas
netlink might apply to other types of physical networks.  At least that's
my understanding.

You could specify VF MAC and VLANs using netlink today.
e.g. ip link set ethX vf # mac, vlan etc.
Adding spoofing as follows would do it.
ip link set ethX vf # spoof on|off

Having SR-IOV features scattered among ethtool and ip link may be
inconvenient for the end users.
CC-ing virtualization list.

quoted

However, I have no strong feelings about it and if community consensus

is to use ip link instead then that's fine by me.

quoted

Of course, patches implementing such would be quite welcome also.

I could take a stab at it at the netlink side, if there is a consensus.

Now that I think about it I'm seeing it more your way.  I'll drop the anti-spoofing stuff from my ethtool patches.  If you get the time to provide patches to netlink for anti-spoofing then that's great, otherwise I'll do it when I get done with the SR-IOV reconfig stuff.

Thanks,

- Greg