From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (mail-vk0-f50.google.com [209.85.213.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F632BF5 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:33:45 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id z68so8600920vkg.3 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:33:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=pQq3nP68dUWbLVPcR1o7Tkd2MgesD1+8uqy+1BzXca0=; b=dOUfZ9rlxZOIv/BcBO1/srI3VwjBNmxr/l3QLacM9tsB4CGnZsjw0vgNfXOeEIrAxY Vd+HOet4zegNoF/yjUZDyTn9JtlqiPGoBt0RCg4R0rCt9JBG//8VmKV70NVR6+DZAcfI RoEARwBsvdK+T38HuH/pGd/EBwVTJg+u+/jibtDG7IoPwSS7DYvnoRE2ko9We23neGpM KQmyRt0xdXRy6gr49CJIqBJhhIw6g3OF3R8amOPfWY6uNJH8vYLCCBa/7y7ja6Ahcbn8 z/iIMgDqKt7Fb0fFoMTTze8iYCX/HHoEs4heK8QKAzUe+svtpwzTZmWBX8goc3Nusmtg 7/3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=pQq3nP68dUWbLVPcR1o7Tkd2MgesD1+8uqy+1BzXca0=; b=Q+XfkWpOSIbvmo9UzjHrJQ9dFh3y2PPbdd0ZuX2R/2LF2DOx+jRaficRT9wLnYUJeh SH7SnzjGxl4JNbtg0cZt5q8h0u6oOmVZ3vENrb6QFDrE8PMS8+ZlJ7TxxiqBbLlcULqv ZTe5SJ/qV9hlx5N8DtXp7S9H3Vs7/g3m0PbWIS8MbeRr9N0iIJIutqRnLiunXnnynZ1a KJVvP68zEzT6ODj5DgojqffaK8Hki50h+ksnTl0aFGzbjMW4T0bzxqVZfIoAHv7AmYjV Z6kSWivOBc2PJLws0mHkaf79/yKIsmGUQrrHlmXdRJ9E0lpKOvaz09peQHQrqvPn2kR/ 6D5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJsrBlziBwmuTJkVbUmTCsczRzceSrGZtWq3AGGde96GjIlOhnQFeITVytJyM5yvH8yRK3jlBBMAdF5bA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.50.65 with SMTP id y62mr34816472vky.11.1458632025059; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:33:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.1.8 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:33:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E6028622F71044@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090343BA89@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E6028622F71044@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:03:44 +0530 Message-ID: From: bharath paulraj To: "Qiu, Michael" Cc: "Rose, Gregory V" , "Zhang, Helin" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Rowden, Aaron F" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Jayakumar, Muthurajan" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 07:33:46 -0000 Thanks a lot Michael. Finally i am able to see some light. I will try the same in our setup and will post you the results. Thanks, Bharath On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Qiu, Michael wrote: > Yes, we could let ovs using 82599 VF to do rx/tx. I don't know what's > your l2 bridge, but since ovs could work I think your bridge also could > work. But I only tested with one VF. > > Make sure below two patches (bifurcate driver) are included in your kernel: > > _https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/476511/_ > _https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/476516/_ > > Mostly, if your kernel version in 4.2 or newer, it should be included. > > After you create VF, before you passthrough the VF to guest: > > (vf +1) << 32 + queue-index, > > > 1. where vf is the VF index starting from 0 > 2. the queue-index is 0 if multi-queue support is not turned on, and > this value is [0,1] if multiple-queue is turned on > > > echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:05\:00.0/sriov_numvfs > ifconfig $(PF_INTF) up > ifconfig $(VF0_INFT) up > ip link set $(PF_INTF) promisc on > ethtool -K $(PF_INTF) ntuple on > ethtool -N $(PF_INTF) flow-type udp4 dst-port 4789 action 0x100000000 > (VF0 queue 0) > > Here we using flow director to all let packets according to the rules to > the VF, But I don't know if it could let the packets to other VFs at the > same time. > > Thanks, > Michael > > On 3/17/2016 2:43 PM, bharath paulraj wrote: > > Hi Lu, Helin, Greg, > > > > Many thanks for your response, which is really quick. Now, If I want > > to implement L2 bridging with Intel virtualization technologies, using > > 82599 controller, then Michael is my only hope, as getting the new > > kernel versions and upstream support will take considerable amount of > > time. > > > > Michael, Could you please share your experience on L2 bridging > > using Intel virtualization technologies. > > > > Thanks, > > Bharath > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Rose, Gregory V > > > wrote: > > > > Intel has not supported promiscuous mode for virtual functions due > > to the security concerns mentioned below. > > > > There will be upstream support in an upcoming Linux kernel for > > setting virtual functions as "trusted" and when that is available > > then Intel will allow virtual functions to enter unicast > > promiscuous mode on those Ethernet controllers that support > > promiscuous mode for virtual functions in the HW/FW. Be aware > > that not all Intel Ethernet controllers have support for unicast > > promiscuous mode for virtual functions. The only currently > > released product that does is the X710/XL710. > > > > The key take away is that unicast promiscuous mode for X710/XL710 > > virtual functions requires Linux kernel support, iproute2 package > > support and driver support. Only when all three of these are in > > place will the feature work. > > > > Thanks, > > > > - Greg > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Zhang, Helin > > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:04 AM > > To: bharath paulraj > >; Lu, Wenzhuo > >; Rowden, Aaron F > > >; > > Rose, Gregory V > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org ; Qiu, Michael > > >; Jayakumar, > > Muthurajan > > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF > > > > Hi Bharath > > > > For your question of "why intel does not support unicast > > promiscuos mode?", I'd ask Aaron or Greg to give answers. > > Thank you very much! > > > > Regards, > > Helin > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org > > ] On Behalf Of bharath paulraj > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:29 PM > > > To: Lu, Wenzhuo > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF > > > > > > Hi Lu, > > > > > > Many thanks for your response. Again I have few more queries. > > > If VF unicast promiscuous mode is not supported then can't we > > > implement a Layer 2 bridging functionality using intel > > virtualization > > > technologies? Or Is there any other way, say tweeking some hardware > > > registers or drivers, which may help us in implementing Layer 2 > > bridging. > > > Also I would like to know, why intel does not support unicast > > promiscuos mode? > > > It could have been optional register settings and user should > > have had > > > a previleage to set or unset it. Besides, security reasons, is > there > > > any other big reason why Intel does not support this? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Bharath Paulraj > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Lu, Wenzhuo > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Bharath, > > > > > > > > > 2) Is the above supported for 82599 controller? If it is > > > > > supported > > > > in the NIC, > > > > > please provide the steps to enable. > > > > Talking about 82599, VF unicast promiscuous mode is not > supported. > > > > Only broadcast and multicast can be supported. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Bharath Paulraj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Bharath > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bharath > > -- Regards, Bharath