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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20191108183411.GW6990@nanopsycho>
Date:   Fri, 8 Nov 2019 19:34:11 +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 07:23:44PM CET, parav@...lanox.com wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>
>[..]
>> Well, I don't really need those in the phys_port_name, mainly simply because
>> they would not fit. However, I believe that you should fillup the PF/VF devlink
>> netlink attrs.
>> 
>> Note that we are not talking here about the actual mdev, but rather
>> devlink_port associated with this mdev. And devlink port should have this info.
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >> >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?
>> >Yes, it will be. But just because it is on top of something, doesn't mean we
>> include the whole parent dev, its bridge, its rc hierarchy here.
>> >There should be a need.
>> >It was needed in PF/VF case due to overlapping numbers of VFs via single
>> devlink instance. You probably missed my reply to Jakub.
>> 
>> Sure. Again, I don't really care about having that in phys_port_name.
>> But please fillup the attrs.
>> 
>Ah ok. but than that would be optional attribute?
>Because you can have non pci based mdev, though it doesn't exist today along with devlink to my knowledge.

Non-optional now. We can always change the code to not fill it up or
fill up another attr instead. no UAPI harm.