lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [net-next rfc V3 7/9] macvtap: allow TUNSETIFF to create multiqueue device
On 06/06/2013 02:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 11:13:29AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 06/05/2013 06:43 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 02:36:30PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> Though the queue were in fact created by open(), we still need to add this check
>>>> to be compatible with tuntap which can let mgmt software use a single API to
>>>> manage queues. This patch only validates the device name and moves the TUNSETIFF
>>>> to a helper.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
>>> The patch is OK, the description is confusing.
>>> What you mean is simply:
>>>
>>> Allow IFF_MULTI_QUEUE in TUNSETIFF for macvtap, to match
>>> tun behaviour.
>>>
>>> And if you put it like this, I would say make this
>>> the last patch in the series, so userspace
>>> can use IFF_MULTI_QUEUE to detect new versus old
>>> behaviour.

[...]
>>>> @@ -887,6 +888,44 @@ static void macvtap_put_vlan(struct macvlan_dev *vlan)
>>>> dev_put(vlan->dev);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static int macvtap_set_iff(struct file *file, struct ifreq __user *ifr_u)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct macvtap_queue *q = file->private_data;
>>>> + struct net *net = current->nsproxy->net_ns;
>>>> + struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
>>>> + struct net_device *dev, *dev2;
>>>> + struct ifreq ifr;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (copy_from_user(&ifr, ifr_u, sizeof(struct ifreq)))
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* To keep the same behavior of tuntap, validate ifr_name */
>>> So I'm not sure - why is it important to validate ifr_name here?
>>> We ignore the name for all other flags - why is IFF_MULTI_QUEUE
>>> special?
>> It raises another question, why not validate ifname like tuntap? We
>> should warn userspace about their error, otherwise they may create
>> queues on the wrong device. In fact I want validate for both, but keep
>> the behaviour w/o IFF_MULTI_QUEUE for backward compatibility.
> Basically macvtap ignores ifr_name because it doesn't need it.
> Making it ignore it without IFF_MULTI_QUEUE but
> not with IFF_MULTI_QUEUE seems ugly.
>
> Do you think we'll need ifr_name at some point?
> Why not validate then, when we actually do?
>
>
>

If we want to be more compatible with tuntap to simplify userspace codes.

E.g: There's a userspace who want to create both taps and macvtaps using
the same codes. For tuntap, we can let kernel name the device, so
creating a mq device looks like:

open()
tunsetiff()
if_name = tungetiff()
tunsetiff(if_name)
...
tunsetiff(if_name)

For tuntap, if we specifies a wrong ifr_name, kernel will complains.
We'd better do the same for macvtap.

[...]


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-06 10:41    [W:0.281 / U:4.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site