Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v6 2/4] net: Introduce generic bypass module

["Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@intel.com>]

On 4/18/2018 1:32 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > > > > > > You still use "active"/"backup" names which is highly misleading as
> > > > > > > it has completely different meaning that in bond for example.
> > > > > > > I noted that in my previous review already. Please change it.
> > > > > > I guess the issue is with only the 'active'  name. 'backup' should be fine as it also
> > > > > > matches with the BACKUP feature bit we are adding to virtio_net.
> > > > > I think that "backup" is also misleading. Both "active" and "backup"
> > > > > mean a *state* of slaves. This should be named differently.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > With regards to alternate names for 'active', you suggested 'stolen', but i
> > > > > > am not too happy with it.
> > > > > > netvsc uses vf_netdev, are you OK with this? Or another option is 'passthru'
> > > > > No. The netdev could be any netdevice. It does not have to be a "VF".
> > > > > I think "stolen" is quite appropriate since it describes the modus
> > > > > operandi. The bypass master steals some netdevice according to some
> > > > > match.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I don't insist on "stolen". Just sounds right.
> > > > We are adding VIRTIO_NET_F_BACKUP as a new feature bit to enable this feature, So i think
> > > > 'backup' name is consistent.
> > > It perhaps makes sense from the view of virtio device. However, as I
> > > described couple of times, for master/slave device the name "backup" is
> > > highly misleading.
> > virtio is the backup. You are supposed to use another
> > (typically passthrough) device, if that fails use virtio.
> > It does seem appropriate to me. If you like, we can
> > change that to "standby".  Active I don't like either. "main"?
> Sounds much better, yes.

OK. Will change backup to 'standby'.
'main' is fine, what about 'primary'?


> > In fact would failover be better than bypass?
> Also, much better.

So do we want to change all 'bypass' references to 'failover' including
the filenames.(net/core/failover.c and include/net/failover.h)

<snip>



> > > > The intent is to restrict the 'active' netdev to be a VF. If there is a way to check that
> > > > a PCI device is a VF in the guest kernel, we could restrict 'active' netdev to be a VF.
> > > >
> > > > Will look for any suggestions in the next day or two. If i don't get any, i will go
> > > > with 'stolen'
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static struct net_device *bypass_master_get_bymac(u8 *mac,
> > > > > +						  struct bypass_ops **ops)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	struct bypass_master *bypass_master;
> > > > > +	struct net_device *bypass_netdev;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	spin_lock(&bypass_lock);
> > > > > +	list_for_each_entry(bypass_master, &bypass_master_list, list) {
> > > > > > > As I wrote the last time, you don't need this list, spinlock.
> > > > > > > You can do just something like:
> > > > > > >            for_each_net(net) {
> > > > > > >                    for_each_netdev(net, dev) {
> > > > > > > 			if (netif_is_bypass_master(dev)) {
> > > > > > This function returns the upper netdev as well as the ops associated
> > > > > > with that netdev.
> > > > > > bypass_master_list is a list of 'struct bypass_master' that associates
> > > > > Well, can't you have it in netdev priv?
> > > > We cannot do this for 2-netdev model as there is no bypass_netdev created.
> > > Howcome? You have no master? I don't understand..

For 2-netdev model, the master netdev is not a new one created by the bypass module.
It is created by netvsc internally and passed via bypass_master_register()

<snip>



> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +	/* Avoid Bonding master dev with same MAC registering as slave dev */
> > > > > > > > +	if ((dev->priv_flags & IFF_BONDING) && (dev->flags & IFF_MASTER))
> > > > > > > Yeah, this is certainly incorrect. One thing is, you should be using the
> > > > > > > helpers netif_is_bond_master().
> > > > > > > But what about the rest? macsec, macvlan, team, bridge, ovs and others?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You need to do it not by blacklisting, but with whitelisting. You need
> > > > > > > to whitelist VF devices. My port flavours patchset might help with this.
> > > > > > May be i can use netdev_has_lower_dev() helper to make sure that the slave
> > > > > I don't see such function in the code.
> > > > It is netdev_has_any_lower_dev(). I need to export it.
> > > Come on, you cannot use that. That would allow bonding without slaves,
> > > but the slaves could be added later on.
> > >
> > > What exactly you are trying to achieve by this?

I think i can remove this check.  In pre-register,
for backup device, i check that its parent matches bypass device &
for vf device, we make sure that it is a pci device.