RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [virtio-comment] RE: RE: RE: RE: [RFC] virtio-net: support access and control the member devices

[Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com>]

> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:03 AM

> > This option because it is in use by very big and mature eco system of multiple
> sw stacks, kernel subsystem, drivers, and nics for several years now.
> >
> > > A drawback of using switch is that it introduces dependencies.
> > >
> > Feature is not a dependency. :)
> 
> Well, I meant you need a switch in order to let the IP filter work then.
>
Ok.
 
> >
> > > > A virtio switch object can be part of a existing virtio device or
> > > > a new virtio
> > > device type in itself.
> > >
> > > That's fine.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Xuan,
> > > > As we discussed, since the owner device packets also needs to be
> > > > filtered, potentially outside of the owner device itself,
> > >
> > > This seems the admin request out of the scope of virtio.
> > >
> > Not really, it could be virto switch device that manage PF also.
> > At that point, there may be two functions, PF and switching PF, switching PF
> filters the traffic of the PF.
> 
> That's fine. But such filtering needs to be done in a switch specific way not via
> the admin command/virtqueue.

A switch object needs a generic flow filter vq(s) to meet the high rate needed.
Several of us have worked through the flow filter vq for few several weeks on bi-weekly basis and over public mailing lists.

We can differ the design discussion once we have clarity on requirements. :)