netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 12/19] devlink: Introduce mdev port flavour

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191108163139.GQ6990@nanopsycho>
Date:   Fri, 8 Nov 2019 17:31:39 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
        "cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/19] devlink: Introduce mdev port flavour

Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 04:45:06PM CET, parav@...lanox.com wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 3:47 AM
>> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
>> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>;
>> alex.williamson@...hat.com; davem@...emloft.net; kvm@...r.kernel.org;
>> netdev@...r.kernel.org; Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>;
>> kwankhede@...dia.com; leon@...nel.org; cohuck@...hat.com; Jiri Pirko
>> <jiri@...lanox.com>; linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/19] devlink: Introduce mdev port flavour
>> 
>> Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 03:31:02AM CET, parav@...lanox.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
>> >> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 8:20 PM
>> >> To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
>> >> Cc: alex.williamson@...hat.com; davem@...emloft.net;
>> >> kvm@...r.kernel.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Saeed Mahameed
>> >> <saeedm@...lanox.com>; kwankhede@...dia.com; leon@...nel.org;
>> >> cohuck@...hat.com; Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>; linux-
>> >> rdma@...r.kernel.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/19] devlink: Introduce mdev port
>> >> flavour
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 01:44:53 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
>> >> > > I'm talking about netlink attributes. I'm not suggesting to
>> >> > > sprintf it all into the phys_port_name.
>> >> > >
>> >> > I didn't follow your comment. For devlink port show command output
>> >> > you said,
>> >> >
>> >> > "Surely those devices are anchored in on of the PF (or possibly
>> >> > VFs) that should be exposed here from the start."
>> >> > So I was trying to explain why we don't expose PF/VF detail in the
>> >> > port attributes which contains
>> >> > (a) flavour
>> >> > (b) netdev representor (name derived from phys_port_name)
>> >> > (c) mdev alias
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you please describe which netlink attribute I missed?
>> >>
>> >> Identification of the PCI device. The PCI devices are not linked to
>> >> devlink ports, so the sysfs hierarchy (a) is irrelevant, (b) may not
>> >> be visible in multi- host (or SmartNIC).
>> >>
>> >
>> >It's the unique mdev device alias. It is not right to attach to the PCI device.
>> >Mdev is bus in itself where devices are identified uniquely. So an alias
>> suffice that identity.
>> 
>> Wait a sec. For mdev, what you say is correct. But here we talk about
>> devlink_port which is representing this mdev. And this devlink_port is very
>> similar to VF devlink_port. It is bound to specific PF (in case of mdev it could
>> be PF-VF).
>>
>But mdev port has unique phys_port_name in system, it incorrect to use PF/VF prefix.

Why incorrect? It is always bound to pf/vf?

>What in hypothetical case, mdev is not on top of PCI...

Okay, let's go hypothetical. In that case, it is going to be on top of
something else, wouldn't it?