On 9/27/24 22:54, Haiyang Zhang wrote:
The existing code moves VF to the same namespace as the synthetic device during netvsc_register_vf(). But, if the synthetic device is moved to a new namespace after the VF registration, the VF won't be moved together.
To make the behavior more consistent, add a namespace check to netvsc_open(), and move the VF if it is not in the same namespace.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: c0a41b887ce6 ("hv_netvsc: move VF to same namespace as netvsc device") Signed-off-by: Haiyang Zhang haiyangz@microsoft.com
This looks strange to me. Skimming over the code it looks like that with VF you really don't mean a Virtual Function...
Looking at the blamed commit, it looks like that having both the synthetic and the "VF" device in different namespaces is an intended use-case. This change would make such scenario more difficult and could possibly break existing use-cases.
Why do you think it will be more consistent? If the user moved the synthetic device in another netns, possibly/likely the user intended to keep both devices separated.
Thanks,
Paolo