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]

Message-ID: <20190318123634.6e90c043@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:36:34 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "oss-drivers@...ronome.com" <oss-drivers@...ronome.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] devlink: allow subports on devlink PCI
 ports

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:22:33 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>>>>>2. flavour should not be vf/pf, flavour should be hostport, switchport.
>>>  >Because switch is flat and agnostic of pf/vf/mdev.  
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure. It's good to have this kind of visibility.
>>>>>  
>>>> port can have label/attribute indicating that this belong to VF-1 or
>>>> mdev as long as you are agreeing to have mdev attribute on host port.  
>>>> (and not ask for abstracting it, because mdev is well defined kernel object).  
>>>
>>> Why mdev cannot be another flavour?
>>>  
>> 
>> hostport is of type pf/vf/mdev connected to some switchport.
>> 
>> So proposal is to have,
>> port flavour = hostport/switchport
>> port type/label = pf/vf/mdev
>>   
> Instead of having two attributes per port, how about having,
> port flavour= physical/cpu/dsa/pf/vf/mdev/switchport.
> 
> physical and pf has some overlapping definitions.

What "overlapping definitions" do physical and PF have?
Sounds like you're referring to limitations of Mellanox HW.