linux-kernel - Re: [pci PATCH v4 1/4] pci-iov: Add support for unmanaged SR-IOV

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKgT0UcJz7go-vRd88M6uo1mqbG9BfedkZmR0CXZ92m6KfRPzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:01:54 -0700
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Daly, Dan" <dan.daly@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, keith.busch@...el.com,
        netanel@...zon.com, Maximilian Heyne <mheyne@...zon.de>,
        "Wang, Liang-min" <liang-min.wang@...el.com>,
        "Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, dwmw@...zon.co.uk
Subject: Re: [pci PATCH v4 1/4] pci-iov: Add support for unmanaged SR-IOV

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 09:59:09PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> I still struggle to understand why we need this "unmanaged"
>> complication and how a user of the sysfs API is expected to have any
>> idea whether a PF is managed or unmanaged and why they should care.
>> Can't we just have a pci_simple_sriov_configure() helper and ignore
>> this unmanaged business?  Thanks,
>
> Just a pci_simple_sriov_configure is exactly what I envisioned originally.

I can drop the "unmanaged" bits if that is what is wanted, but based
on previous conversations I thought there was some concern about the
kernel loading VFs when there was some foreign entity managing the VFs
other than the kernel.

Thanks.

- Alex