[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 4/4] docs: Introduce xenstore paths for guest network address information
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Jackson [mailto:Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 16 November 2015 17:39 > To: Paul Durrant > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ian Campbell; Jan Beulich; Keir (Xen.org); > Tim (Xen.org) > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] docs: Introduce xenstore paths for guest > network address information > > Paul Durrant writes ("[PATCH v4 4/4] docs: Introduce xenstore paths for > guest network address information"): > > +* MAC_ADDRESS -- 6 integers, in hexadecimal form, separated by ':', > > + specifying an ethernet MAC address. > > +* IPV4_ADDRESS -- 4 integers, in decimal form, separated by '.', > > + specifying an IP version 4 address. > > +* IPV6_ADDRESS -- Up to 8 integers, in hexadecimal form, separated > > + by ':', specifying an IP version 6 address. > > + (Zero compression of addresses, using '::' notation, > > + is allowed but not required). > > Sorry for not mentioning this before, but you should probably > provide normative cross-references. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean there. Do you mean references to relevant RFCs? > > > +#### ~/attr/vif/$DEVID/name = STRING [w] > > + > > +A domain may write its internal 'friendly' name for a network device > > +using this path. A toolstack or UI may use this for display purposes > > +but, since it is entirely under the control of the guest, no > > +particular meaning should be inferred from the name. > > Permitted character set ? Encoding ? UTF-8 I guess. I'll add that. > > > +#### ~/attr/vif/$DEVID/mac/$INDEX = MAC_ADDRESS [w] > > + > > +The guest may override the MAC address written in the vif backend by > > +the toolstack and hence the guest may write one of the paths of > > +this form with the unicast MAC address it is currently using. Other > > +paths may be used by the guest to write multicast addresses which > > +are in operation. > > "Paths of this form" vs "other paths" is confusing. If there is a > distinction between $INDEX==0 and others, you need to say so - but I > think you probably don't intend that. > Ok, I'll re-word. > > +The values written to these paths are under guest control and, as > > +such, they are primarily for display purposes and should not be used > > +for packet filtering or routing purposes. > > Not using them for filtering or routing is not just for security > reasons but also to avoid hideous layer violation doom. So I would > delete the whole section about `under guest control' (which is > obvious) and make it two sentences. I would also say `must not' > rather than `should not'. > > A similar comment applies to the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. > Ok. Paul > Thanks, > Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |