Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 net-next] xen-netback: add support for multicast control

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 10:34 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Campbell [mailto:ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 03 September 2015 10:31
> > To: Paul Durrant; Jan Beulich
> > Cc: Wei Liu; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 net-next] xen-netback: add support 
> > for
> > multicast control
> > 
> > On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 10:00 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: 03 September 2015 09:57
> > > > To: Paul Durrant
> > > > Cc: Ian Campbell; Wei Liu; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 net-next] xen-netback: add 
> > > > support
> > > > for
> > > > multicast control
> > > > 
> > > > > > > On 02.09.15 at 18:58, <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > @@ -1215,6 +1289,31 @@ static void xenvif_tx_build_gops(struct
> > > > xenvif_queue *queue,
> > > > >                               break;
> > > > >               }
> > > > > 
> > > > > +             if (extras[XEN_NETIF_EXTRA_TYPE_MCAST_ADD - 
> > > > > 1].type)
> > > > > {
> > > > > +                     struct xen_netif_extra_info *extra;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +                     extra =
> > > > &extras[XEN_NETIF_EXTRA_TYPE_MCAST_ADD - 1];
> > > > > +                     ret = xenvif_mcast_add(queue->vif, extra
> > > > > -
> > > > > u.mcast.addr);
> > > > 
> > > > What's the reason this call isn't gated on vif->multicast_control?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > No particular reason. I guess it eats a small amount of memory for no
> > > gain but a well behaved frontend wouldn't send such a request and a
> > > malicious one can only send 64 of them before netback starts to 
> > > reject
> > > them.
> > 
> > Perhaps a confused guest might submit them thinking they would work
> > when
> > actually the feature hasn't been properly negotiated and since it would
> > succeed it wouldn't generate an error on the guest side?
> 
> It would, but that's essentially harmless to functionality. If the 
> feature had not been negotiated properly then multicast flooding would 
> still be in operation so the guest would not lose any multicasts. I can 
> tighten things up if you like but as you say below it is a bit of a 
> corner case.

Ah yes, I had something backwards and thought the guest might miss out on
something it was expecting, but as you say it will just get more than it
wanted.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel