netdev - Re: [patch net-next RFC 00/12] devlink: introduce port flavours and common phys_port

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]

Message-ID: <20180328061754.GA2012@nanopsycho>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 08:17:54 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, idosch@...lanox.com,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com,
        dirk.vandermerwe@...ronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
        ogerlitz@...lanox.com, dsahern@...il.com, vijaya.guvva@...ium.com,
        satananda.burla@...ium.com, raghu.vatsavayi@...ium.com,
        felix.manlunas@...ium.com, gospo@...adcom.com,
        sathya.perla@...adcom.com, vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com,
        tariqt@...lanox.com, eranbe@...lanox.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 00/12] devlink: introduce port flavours and
 common phys_port_name generation

Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:02:34AM CEST, stephen@...workplumber.org wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:55:10 +0100
>Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>> 
>> This patchset resolves 2 issues we have right now:
>> 1) There are many netdevices / ports in the system, for port, pf, vf
>>    represenatation but the user has no way to see which is which
>
>There already are a lot of attributes, adding more doesn't necessarily
>help make things clearer.

How elso you distinguish pfrep/vfrep/cpuport/etc?

>
>> 2) The ndo_get_phys_port_name is implemented in each driver separatelly,
>>    which may lead to inconsistent names between drivers.
>
>Why not address that problem. My concern is that your new attribute
>will have the same problem.

I try to address that...


>
>Also adding pf and vfNNN on the name will make the already tightly squeezed
>interface name length a real problem. I have had arguments with people
>trying use VLAN 4000 and standard naming policy.  Which means you really
>can't go that long.

Understood. However, I just do what is already done in nfp for example.