From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Fastabend Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] 8021q: validate SAN MAC address Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:58:16 -0800 Message-ID: <50A2FAB8.8010803@intel.com> References: <1352845788.6276.28.camel@LTIRV-MCHAN1.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <20121113.181600.667479923208656972.davem@davemloft.net> <1352850029.6276.52.camel@LTIRV-MCHAN1.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <20121113.202408.79469396824848499.davem@davemloft.net> <1352857850.6276.71.camel@LTIRV-MCHAN1.corp.ad.broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Chan Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:10257 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756154Ab2KNB6q (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:58:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1352857850.6276.71.camel@LTIRV-MCHAN1.corp.ad.broadcom.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/13/2012 5:50 PM, Michael Chan wrote: > On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 20:24 -0500, David Miller wrote: >> From: "Michael Chan" >> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:40:29 -0800 >> >>> I suppose we can just put the SAN MAC into the real netdev->dev_addr so >>> that the VLAN will automatically get it. But this doesn't seem very >>> nice as we would be pretending to have a normal MAC address (for >>> networking) in this SAN device. The networking MAC address is in a >>> different PCI function. >> >> I certainly would prefer if you took that approach. At least in that >> way the addressing of the netdev objects would appear more consistent. >> > Ok. To be more complete, I think we need to add a flag or something to > such a netdev to indicate that it is a SAN device only. What's your > opinion on that? Michael, how do you determine a L2 packet is a SAN type? Do you have ACLs in the FW/hardware to prevent other types of L2 traffic from being sent? I guess I'm asking what makes it a SAN only device. .John