netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 1/3] devlink: Introduce PCI PF port flavour and port attribute

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:   Wed, 3 Jul 2019 04:46:13 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 1/3] devlink: Introduce PCI PF port flavour and
 port attribute



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 7:46 AM
> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Saeed
> Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] devlink: Introduce PCI PF port flavour and
> port attribute
> 
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 02:08:39 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > If you want to expose some device specific eswitch port ID please
> > > add a new attribute for that.
> > > The fact that that ID may match port_number for your device today is
> > > coincidental.  port_number, and split attributes should not be
> > > exposed for PCI ports.
> >
> > So your concern is non mellanox hw has eswitch but there may not be a
> > unique handle to identify a eswitch port?
> 
> That's not a concern, no.  Like any debug attribute it should be optional.
> 
> > Or that handle may be wider than 32-bit?
> 
> 64 bit would probably be better, yes, although that wasn't my initial
> concern.
> 
Why 32-bit is not enough?

> > And instead of treating port_number as handle, there should be
> > different attribute, is that the ask?
> 
> Yes, the ask, as always, is to not abuse existing attributes to carry
> tangentially related information.

Why it is tangential?
Devlink_port has got a port_number. Depending on flavour this port_number represents a port.
If it is floavour=PHYSICAL, its physical port number.
If it is eswitch pf/vf ports, it represents eswitch port.

Why you see it only as physical_port_number?

Jiri,
Do you see it this way too?