[dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF
Qiu, Michael
michael.qiu at intel.com
Tue Mar 22 07:39:40 CET 2016
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
> <gregory.v.rose at intel.com <mailto:gregory.v.rose at intel.com>> 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 <bharathpaul at gmail.com
> <mailto:bharathpaul at gmail.com>>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com
> <mailto:wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>>; Rowden, Aaron F
> <aaron.f.rowden at intel.com <mailto:aaron.f.rowden at intel.com>>;
> Rose, Gregory V <gregory.v.rose at intel.com
> <mailto:gregory.v.rose at intel.com>>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org <mailto:dev at dpdk.org>; Qiu, Michael
> <michael.qiu at intel.com <mailto:michael.qiu at intel.com>>; Jayakumar,
> Muthurajan <muthurajan.jayakumar at intel.com
> <mailto:muthurajan.jayakumar at intel.com>>
> 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 at dpdk.org
> <mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org>] On Behalf Of bharath paulraj
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:29 PM
> > To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org <mailto:dev at 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
> <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com <mailto:wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>>
> > 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
More information about the dev
mailing list