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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20250303140623.5df9f990@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 14:06:23 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
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

On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 13:22:25 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> 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.

Yet another "great choice" in mlx5 other drivers have foreseen
problems with and avoided.

> >> 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?

Not in a way which requires cross-port state sharing, no.
You should know this.