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]

Message-ID: <20190702191536.4de1ac68@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 19:15:36 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.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

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.

> 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.