RE: [E1000-devel] [PATCH] ixgbe: make VLAN filter conditional in SR-IOV case

[Hiroshi Shimamoto]

> On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 00:51 +0000, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH] ixgbe: make VLAN filter
> > conditional in SR-IOV case
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 08:28 +0000, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> > > > From: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Disable hardware VLAN filtering if netdev->features VLAN flag is
> > > > dropped.
> > > >
> > > > In SR-IOV case, there is a use case which needs to disable VLAN
> > > > filter.
> > > > For example, we need to make a network function with VF in
> > virtualized
> > > > environment. That network function may be a software switch, a
> > router
> > > > or etc. It means that that network function will be an end point
> > which
> > > > terminates many VLANs.
> > > >
> > > > In the current implementation, VLAN filtering always be turned on
> > and
> > > > VF can receive only 63 VLANs. It means that only 63 VLANs can be
> > used
> > > > and it's not enough at all for building a virtual router.
> > > >
> > > > With this patch, if the user turns VLAN filtering off on the host,
> > VF
> > > > can receive every VLAN packet.
> > > > The behavior is changed only if VLAN filtering is turned off by
> > > > ethtool.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > CC: Choi, Sy Jong <sy.jong.choi@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c  | 10 ++++++++++
> > > >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_sriov.c |  4 ++++
> > > >  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > Thanks Hiroshi, I will add your patch to my queue.
> >
> > How about this patch?
> > It hasn't been in your tree,.
> > Is there any issue?
> 
> This patch was dropped for two reasons.  First was Ben Hutchings issues
> with the patch needed to be addressed.  Second, was due to a possible
> security hole which is why VLAN filtering was not disabled in SRIOV
> mode, where isolation is lost between VMs.
> 
> If you want to continue going forward with this change, a warning
> message should be added, at least, warning the user of the possible
> security issues.

okay, I understand.
I will submit a patch which has warning message.

thanks,
Hiroshi