linux-kernel - RE: [RFC net-next 0/8] Introducing subdev bus and devlink extension

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:   Wed, 9 Jun 2021 11:59:33 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     moyufeng <moyufeng@...wei.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "michal.lkml@...kovi.net" <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
        "lipeng (Y)" <lipeng321@...wei.com>,
        Guangbin Huang <huangguangbin2@...wei.com>,
        "shenjian15@...wei.com" <shenjian15@...wei.com>,
        "chenhao (DY)" <chenhao288@...ilicon.com>,
        Jiaran Zhang <zhangjiaran@...wei.com>,
        "linuxarm@...neuler.org" <linuxarm@...neuler.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC net-next 0/8] Introducing subdev bus and devlink extension



> From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 4:35 PM
> 
> On 2021/6/9 17:38, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >> From: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 2:46 PM
> >>
> > [..]
> >
> >>>> Is there any reason why VF use its own devlink instance?
> >>>
> >>> Primary use case for VFs is virtual environments where guest isn't
> >>> trusted, so tying the VF to the main devlink instance, over which
> >>> guest should have no control is counter productive.
> >>
> >> The security is mainly about VF using in container case, right?
> >> Because VF using in VM, it is different host, it means a different
> >> devlink instance for VF, so there is no security issue for VF using in VM
> case?
> >> But it might not be the case for VF using in container?
> > Devlink instance has net namespace attached to it controlled using devlink
> reload command.
> > So a VF devlink instance can be assigned to a container/process running in a
> specific net namespace.
> >
> > $ ip netns add n1
> > $ devlink dev reload pci/0000:06:00.4 netns n1
> >                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >                                      PCI VF/PF/SF.
> 
> Could we create another devlink instance when the net namespace of
> devlink port instance is changed? 
Net namespace of (a) netdevice (b) rdma device (c) devlink instance can be changed.
Net namespace of devlink port cannot be changed.

> It may seems we need to change the net
> namespace based on devlink port instance instead of devlink instance.
> This way container case seems be similiar to the VM case?
I mostly do not understand the topology you have in mind or if you explained previously I missed the thread.
In your case what is the flavour of a devlink port?

> 
> >
> >> Also, there is a "switch_id" concept from jiri's example, which seems
> >> to be not implemented yet?
> >
> > switch_id is present for switch ports in [1] and documented in [2].
> >
> > [1] /sys/class/net/representor_netdev/phys_switch_id.
> > [2]
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/switchdev.txt "
> Switch ID"
> 
> Thanks for info.
> I suppose we could use "switch_id" to indentify a eswitch since "switch_id is
> present for switch ports"?
> Where does the "switch_id" of switch port come from? Is it from FW?
> Or the driver generated it?
> 
> Is there any rule for "switch_id"? Or is it vendor specific?
> 
> >
It should be unique enough, usually generated out of board serial id or other fields such as vendor OUI that makes it fairly unique.