linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 03/10] devlink: Serialize access to rate domains

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <kmjgcuyao7a7zb2u4554rj724ucpd2xqmf5yru4spdqim7zafk@2ry67hbehjgx>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:22:25 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, 
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>, 
	Carolina Jubran <cjubran@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>, 
	Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/10] devlink: Serialize access to rate domains

Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 03:53:10AM +0100, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:44:35 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > Why would there still be PF instances? I'm not suggesting that you
>> > create a hierarchy of instances.  
>> 
>> I'm not sure how you imagine getting rid of them. One PCI PF
>> instantiates one devlink now. There are lots of configuration (e.g. params)
>> that is per-PF. You need this instance for that, how else would you do
>> per-PF things on shared ASIC instance?
>
>There are per-PF ports, right?

Depends. On normal host sr-iov, no. On smartnic where you have PF in
host, yes.


>
>> Creating SFs is per-PF operation for example. I didn't to thorough
>> analysis, but I'm sure there are couple of per-PF things like these.
>
>Seems like adding a port attribute to SF creation would be a much
>smaller extension than adding a layer of objects.
>
>> Also not breaking the existing users may be an argument to keep per-PF
>> instances.
>
>We're talking about multi-PF devices only. Besides pretty sure we 
>moved multiple params and health reporters to be per port, so IDK 
>what changed now.

Looks like pretty much all current NICs are multi-PFs, aren't they?