Re: [PATCH for-next 01/10] net/core: Add support for configuring VF GUIDs

[Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1605 bytes --]

On 3/1/2016 4:08 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 07:49:51PM +0200, Eli Cohen wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:37:51AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>> + return handle_infiniband_guid(dev, &ivt, IFLA_VF_IB_PORT_GUID);
>>>>
>>>> But is this emulation really necessary? It seems dangerous and
>>>> continues the bad practice of assuming IFLA_VF_MAC is fixed to 6 bytes
>>>> in size, and is not just LLADDR bytes. I'd rather see mac sets fail on
>>>> IB.
>>>>
>>> struct ifla_vf_mac  already defines mac as 32 bytes but the idea here
>>> is that applications that configure six byte Ethernet MACs to VFs will
>>> continue to work without any change.
>>
>> In my view it is incorrect for an application to try and set a 6 byte
>> mac on an *infiniband* interface, the kernel should refuse to do it.
> 
> As Eli wrote, there's a well defined way to extend MAC to GUID. With
> that in hand, the idea here is to allow staged/evolved support for IB
> Virtualization using un-touched provisioning systems which assign VMs
> with 6-byte MACs

Exactly *what* provisioning system tries to set the VF_MAC on an IPoIB
interface and expects it to set the GUID of an underlying IB device?

> along with the fully IB aware solution where the
> upper level does provision IB GUIDs.

There has never been upstream support for this MAC->GUID stuff you refer
to.  I'm not convinced we should add it now versus just doing things
right, period.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 884 bytes --]