linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Introduce variable length mdev alias

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]

Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:48:52 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        "cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Introduce variable length mdev alias

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:11:17 +0000
Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> wrote:

> Hi Alex, Cornelia,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kvm-owner@...r.kernel.org <kvm-owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf
> > Of Parav Pandit
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 2:11 AM
> > To: alex.williamson@...hat.com; Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>;
> > kwankhede@...dia.com; cohuck@...hat.com; davem@...emloft.net
> > Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > netdev@...r.kernel.org; Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH 0/4] Introduce variable length mdev alias
> > 
> > To have consistent naming for the netdevice of a mdev and to have consistent
> > naming of the devlink port [1] of a mdev, which is formed using
> > phys_port_name of the devlink port, current UUID is not usable because UUID
> > is too long.
> > 
> > UUID in string format is 36-characters long and in binary 128-bit.
> > Both formats are not able to fit within 15 characters limit of netdev name.
> > 
> > It is desired to have mdev device naming consistent using UUID.
> > So that widely used user space framework such as ovs [2] can make use of
> > mdev representor in similar way as PCIe SR-IOV VF and PF representors.
> > 
> > Hence,
> > (a) mdev alias is created which is derived using sha1 from the mdev name.
> > (b) Vendor driver describes how long an alias should be for the child mdev
> > created for a given parent.
> > (c) Mdev aliases are unique at system level.
> > (d) alias is created optionally whenever parent requested.
> > This ensures that non networking mdev parents can function without alias
> > creation overhead.
> > 
> > This design is discussed at [3].
> > 
> > An example systemd/udev extension will have,
> > 
> > 1. netdev name created using mdev alias available in sysfs.
> > 
> > mdev UUID=83b8f4f2-509f-382f-3c1e-e6bfe0fa1001
> > mdev 12 character alias=cd5b146a80a5
> > 
> > netdev name of this mdev = enmcd5b146a80a5 Here en = Ethernet link m =
> > mediated device
> > 
> > 2. devlink port phys_port_name created using mdev alias.
> > devlink phys_port_name=pcd5b146a80a5
> > 
> > This patchset enables mdev core to maintain unique alias for a mdev.
> > 
> > Patch-1 Introduces mdev alias using sha1.
> > Patch-2 Ensures that mdev alias is unique in a system.
> > Patch-3 Exposes mdev alias in a sysfs hirerchy.
> > Patch-4 Extends mtty driver to optionally provide alias generation.
> > This also enables to test UUID based sha1 collision and trigger error handling
> > for duplicate sha1 results.
> > 
> > In future when networking driver wants to use mdev alias, mdev_alias() API will
> > be added to derive devlink port name.
> >   
> Now that majority of above patches looks in shape and I addressed all comments,
> In next v1 post, I was considering to include mdev_alias() and have
> example use in mtty driver.
> 
> This way, subsequent series of mlx5_core who intents to use
> mdev_alias() API makes it easy to review and merge through Dave M,
> netdev tree. Is that ok with you?

What would be the timing for the mlx5_core use case?  Can we coordinate
within the same development cycle?  I wouldn't want someone to come
clean up the sample driver and remove the API ;)  Thanks,

Alex