Re: RFC: rtnetlink problems with Cisco enic and VFs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:03:19 +0100
> 
> > On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 14:14 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> >> I believe I've found a problem with netlink handling which can be
> >> triggered on Cisco enic devices with a large number (30-40) of virtual
> >> functions.  I believe this is the cause of a real customer problem
> >> we've seen.
> >> 
> >>  * When requesting a list of interfaces with RTM_GETLINK, enic devices
> >>    (and currently, _only_ enic devices) report IFLA_VF_PORTS
> >>    information 
> >> 
> >>  * IFLA_VF_PORTS information has at least 90 bytes ber virtual function
> >> 
> >>  * Unlike IFLA_VFINFO_LIST, the ports information is always reported,
> >>    regardless of the setting of the IFLA_EXT_MASK parameter
> > [...]
> > 
> > So I think you should make reporting of IFLA_VF_PORTS dependent on the
> > same flag as IFLA_VFINFO_LIST.
> 
> I think that's what we'll have to do.

Ok, makes logical sense.

But does anyone know what tools make use of the IFLA_VF_PORTS
information?  Do they set the IFLA_EXT_MASK already?

-- 
David Gibson <dgibson@xxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: pgptQYre3K3xT.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Discussion]     [TCP Instrumentation]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Host AP]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Bluetooth Networking]     [Linux ATH6KL Networking]     [Linux Networking Users]     [Linux Coverity]     [VLAN]     [Git]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Assembly]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux Kernel]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Virtualization]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]