netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 1/3] net: add ndo to get id of physical port of the device

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: <CAJZOPZLa3Cts5jiApt0SKnpkh6sDX4AzywbfTJXXDco1fzGSrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:52:44 +0300
From:	Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	stephen@...workplumber.org, Narendra_K@...l.com,
	bhutchings@...arflare.com, john.r.fastabend@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 1/3] net: add ndo to get id of physical port
 of the device

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:26:32PM CEST, or.gerlitz@...il.com wrote:
>>On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch adds a ndo for getting physical port of the device. Driver
>>> which is aware of being virtual function of some physical port should
>>> implement this ndo.
>>
>>
>>Do you mean virtual function literally?  that is in the PCI IOV aspect?
>
> This is applicable not only for IOV, nbut for other solutions (NPAR,
> multichannel) as well. Basically if there is possible to have multiple
> netdevs on the single hw port.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/netdevice.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  net/core/dev.c            | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>  2 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> index 0741a1e..726dec2 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> @@ -728,6 +728,16 @@ struct netdev_fcoe_hbainfo {
>>>  };
>>>  #endif
>>>
>>> +#define MAX_PHYS_PORT_ID_LEN 32
>>> +
>>> +/* This structure holds a unique identifier to identify the
>>> + * physical port used by a netdevice.
>>> + */
>>> +struct netdev_phys_port_id {
>>> +       unsigned char id[MAX_PHYS_PORT_ID_LEN];
>>> +       unsigned char id_len;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>  /*
>>>   * This structure defines the management hooks for network devices.
>>>   * The following hooks can be defined; unless noted otherwise, they are
>>> @@ -932,6 +942,12 @@ struct netdev_fcoe_hbainfo {
>>>   *     that determine carrier state from physical hardware properties (eg
>>>   *     network cables) or protocol-dependent mechanisms (eg
>>>   *     USB_CDC_NOTIFY_NETWORK_CONNECTION) should NOT implement this function.
>>> + *
>>> + * int (*ndo_get_phys_port_id)(struct net_device *dev,
>>> + *                            struct netdev_phys_port_id *ppid);
>>> + *     Called to get ID of physical port of this device. If driver does
>>> + *     not implement this, it is assumed that the hw is not able to have
>>> + *     multiple net devices on single physical port.
>>>   */
>>
>>I am not sure to understand what is assumed here and why it it mandated.
>
> It is not mandated. The key is to provide clear info to user that couple of
> netdevs share the same port. The goal is to have this implemented for
> all drivers which are able to have more netdevs on single hw port.

But why say that if a certain driver did not implement this NDO, their
HW can't have multiple netdevs on the same port? e.g think on a driver
that supports SRIOV such that multiple VFs can be assigned to the same
guest but their VF driver doesn't support this NDO, what's the problem
with that?  why the documentation does this <-- link

Or.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html