From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] virtio_net: Extend virtio to use VF datapath when
 available
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 02:15:31 +0200
Message-ID: <20171221021450-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <1513644036-45230-1-git-send-email-sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>
 <20171220143140.0a3dc7f1@cakuba.netronome.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>,
        stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        alexander.duyck@gmail.com
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38978 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1756566AbdLUAPc (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:15:32 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171220143140.0a3dc7f1@cakuba.netronome.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 02:33:34PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:40:36 -0800, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> > +static int virtio_netdev_event(struct notifier_block *this,
> > +			       unsigned long event, void *ptr)
> > +{
> > +	struct net_device *event_dev = netdev_notifier_info_to_dev(ptr);
> > +
> > +	/* Skip our own events */
> > +	if (event_dev->netdev_ops == &virtnet_netdev)
> > +		return NOTIFY_DONE;
> 
> I wonder how does this work WRT loop prevention.  What if I have two
> virtio devices with the same MAC, what is preventing them from claiming
> each other?  Is it only the check above (not sure what is "own" in
> comment referring to)?

I expect we will add a feature bit (VIRTIO_NET_F_MASTER) and it will
be host's responsibility not to add more than 1 such device.

> I'm worried the check above will not stop virtio from enslaving hyperv
> interfaces and vice versa, potentially leading to a loop, no?  There is
> also the fact that it would be preferable to share the code between
> paravirt drivers, to avoid duplicated bugs.
> 
> My suggestion during the previous discussion was to create a paravirt
> bond device, which will explicitly tell the OS which interfaces to
> bond, regardless of which driver they're using.  Could be some form of
> ACPI/FW driver too, I don't know enough about x86 FW to suggest
> something fully fleshed :(