netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/8] devlink: allow subports on devlink PCI ports

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: <20190227123753.GB2240@nanopsycho>
Date:   Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:37:53 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, parav@...lanox.com, jgg@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/8] devlink: allow subports on devlink PCI ports

Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:24:32PM CET, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com wrote:
>PCI endpoint corresponds to a PCI device, but such device
>can have one more more logical device ports associated with it.
>We need a way to distinguish those. Add a PCI subport in the
>dumps and print the info in phys_port_name appropriately.
>
>This is not equivalent to port splitting, there is no split
>group. It's just a way of representing multiple netdevs on
>a single PCI function.
>
>Note that the quality of being multiport pertains only to
>the PCI function itself. A PF having multiple netdevs does
>not mean that its VFs will also have multiple, or that VFs
>are associated with any particular port of a multiport VF.
>

We've been discussing the problem of subport (we call it "subfunction"
or "SF") for some time internally. Turned out, this is probably harder
task to model. Please prove me wrong.

The nature of VF makes it a logically separate entity. It has a separate
PCI address, it should therefore have a separate devlink instance.
You can pass it through to VM, then the same devlink instance should be
created inside the VM and disappear from the host.

SF (or subport) feels similar to that. Basically it is exactly the same
thing as VF, only does reside under PF PCI function.

That is why I think, for sake of consistency, it should have a separate
devlink entity as well. The problem is correct sysfs modelling and
devlink handle derived from that. Parav is working on a simple soft
bus for this purpose called "subbus". There is a RFC floating around on
Mellanox internal mailing list, looks like it is time to send it
upstream.

Then each PF driver which have SFs would register subbus devices
according to SFs/subports and they would be properly handled by bus
probe, devlink and devlink port and netdev instances created.

Ccing Parav and Jason.