Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 0/6 v4] macvlan: MAC Address filtering support for passthru mode

[Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>]

* Ben Hutchings (bhutchings@solarflare.com) wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 09:34 -0800, Greg Rose wrote:
> > On 11/29/2011 9:19 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 16:35 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Maybe I missed something!
> [...]
> > >> If not, please explain what the new model *is*.
> > 
> > The new model is to incorporate a VEB into the NIC.  The current model 
> > doesn't address any of the requirements of a VEB in the NIC and this 
> > proposed set of patches allow us to set MAC filters for the *ports* on 
> > the internal NIC VEB.  Consider the PF and each of the VFs as just a 
> > port on the VEB.  We need the ability to set L2 filters (MAC, MC and 
> > VLAN) for each of the ports on that VEB.  There is no currently 
> > supported method for doing this.  So yes, this is a new model although 
> > it's a fairly simple one.
> 
> Explain precisely how the VEB changes the existing model.  Explain how
> the existing MAC filter and VF filter APIs interact with port filters on
> the VEB.  Refer to any relevant standards.

I agree that it's confusing.  Couldn't you simplify your ascii art
(hopefully removing hw assumptions about receive processing, and
completely ignoring vlans for the moment) to something like:

             |RX
             v
+------------+-------------+
|     +------+--------+    |
|     | RX MAC filter |    |
|     |and port select|    |
|     +---------------+    |
|            /|\           |
|           / | \   match 2|
|          /  v  \         |
|         /match  \        |
|        /  1 |    \       |
|       /     |     \      |
|match /      |      \     |
|  0  /       |       \    |
|    v        |        v   |
|    |        |        |   |
+----+--------+--------+---+
     |        |        |
    PF       VF 1     VF 2

And there's an unclear number of ways to update "RX MAC filter and port
select" table.

1) PF ndo_set_mac_addr
I expect that to be implicit to match 0.

2) PF ndo_set_rx_mode
Less clear, but I'd still expect these to implicitly match 0

3) PF ndo_set_vf_mac
I expect these to be an explicit match to VF N (given the interface
specifices which VF's MAC is being programmed).

4) VF ndo_set_mac_addr
This one may or may not be allowed (setting MAC+port if the VF is owned
by a guest is likely not allowed), but would expect an implicit VF N.

5) VF ndo_set_rx_mode
Same as 4) above.

6) PF or VF? ndo_set_rx_filter_addr
The new proposal, which has an explicit VF, although when it's VF_SELF
I'm not clear if this is just the same as 5) above?

Have I missed anything?

thanks,
chris