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:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 05:26:06 +0000
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>,
        Alex Kushnarov <alexanderk@...lanox.com>,
        mlxsw <mlxsw@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/14] mlxsw: Shared buffer improvements

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 02:17:39PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Out of curiosity - are you guys considering adding CPU flavour ports,
> or is there a good reason not to have it exposed?

Yes, we are considering that. In fact, Alexander (Cc-ed) just asked me if
it is possible to monitor the occupancy in the egress CPU pool. This is
impossible without exposing the CPU port and it would have saved us a
lot of time while debugging these issues.

Do you need this functionality for nfp as well? If so, do you have any
thoughts about it? My thinking is that it would be a devlink port
without a backing netdev.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists