Re: [libvirt-users] SR-IOV: no traffic isolation between VFs with Broadcom 10Gbps cards
Instead of using <hostdev>, you should instead try using
<interface
type='hostdev'>, which will allow you to specify the mac address for the
interface directly in the guest's XML config (rather than needing to do
it separately). Here's a link to documentation on this feature:
http://wiki.libvirt.org/page/Networking#PCI_Passthrough_of_host_network_d...
(look down to the section titled "Assignment with <interface
type='hostdev'>")
Or even better, use <interface type='network'> in your guest config
(still put the <mac address='xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx'/> element in each one),
and define a libvirt network which is a pool of SRIOV VFs - this is
described further down the same page.
This will not make a difference to the issue you describe below, but it
should make managing your guest config and lifecycle much simpler.
I also conducted experiments with these XML configs and, as you said, it
didn't make a difference to the issue observed. For most production use,
my sample xml block is clearly not convenient.
Define "failed". Do you mean that the cards communicated,
but the guests
can see each others' traffic? Or do you mean that they see traffic from
each other, but can't seem to communicate normally?
If the problem is the latter, then make sure the PF (eth0 for you, I
guess) has status UP and RUNNING before you start the guests.
For the former, I'm not clear on the internal rules of switching of an
SRIOV card. I think in most cases, the SRIOV card's internal switch may
need to make everything from each VF visible to all other VFs, because
the physical switch it's connected to may not mirror back traffic that
really does need to go from one guest to the other. 802.1Qbh (which
libvirt supports via the <virtualport type='802.1Qbh'> element) does
this differently, requiring all traffic to travel out to the switch,
with the switch making the decision about what gets mirrored back, but
you need an 802.1Qbh-capable switch for that.
What I meant by "failed" was a lack of traffic switching. I thought that
the PF driver was responsible for configuring L2 switching on the NIC.
Some others manufacturers, such as Emulex, have an internal switch. This
is an extract from Emulex Whitepaper:
"I/O’s between VFs on the same PF can be processed by the adapter using
an internal Layer 2 switch, eliminating routing through a physical switch"
I doubt that Broadcom has a specific and unsecure behavior for PF/VF
communications. Unfortunately, I do not have an Intel or Emulex NIC with
SR-IOV feature to check it.
Perhaps, I missed a configuration parameter somewhere or the
driver/firmware used is broken... It looks really weird.
--
Université de Nantes - Direction des Systèmes d'Information
Attachments:
- smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature — 3.2 KB)
- yoann_juet.vcf (text/x-vcard — 365 bytes)