netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] 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]

Date:   Thu, 7 Mar 2019 18:52:02 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] devlink: allow subports on devlink PCI
 ports

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:48:16 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 06:56:38PM CET, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com wrote:
> >On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:20:37 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:  
> >For creating subdevices, I don't think the handle should ever be port.
> >We create new ports on a devlink instance, and configure its forwarding  
> 
> Okay I agree. Something like:
> $ devlink port add pci/0000:00:10.0 .....
> 
> It's a bit confusing because "set" accepts port handle (like
> pci/0000:00:10.0/1). Probably better would be:
> $ devlink dev port add pci/0000:00:10.0 .....
> 
> >with offloads of well established Linux SW constructs.  New devices are
> >not logically associated with other ports (see how in my patches there
> >are 2 "subports" but no main port on that PF - a split not a hierarchy).  
> 
> Right, basically you have 2 equal objects. Makes sense.
> 
> >How we want to model forwarding inside a VM (who configures the
> >underlying switching) remains unclear.  
> 
> I don't understand. Could you elaborate a bit?

If VF in a VM gets a partitioning request does the new port pop up on
the hypervisor?  With a port netdev?

Does the VF also create a port object as well as host port object?

That question is probably independent of host port discussion.