netdev - Re: [PATCH 08/15] devlink: add devres managed devlinkm_alloc and devlinkm

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: <336730c0-797c-a695-ba63-b4a9033477ee@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:35:19 -0800
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...nulli.us, valex@...lanox.com,
        linyunsheng@...wei.com, lihong.yang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] devlink: add devres managed devlinkm_alloc and
 devlinkm_free

On 2/1/2020 9:43 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 16:51:10 -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> TL;DR; Yes, I'd like to have a single devlink for the device, but no, I
>> don't have a good answer for how to do it sanely.
> 
> Ack, it not a new problem and I don't have a solution either :(
> 

Right.

> I don't think mlx5 has this distinction of only single/first PF being
> able to perform device-wide updates so perhaps it's better to not
> introduce that notion? 
> 

I was just talking about that with someone yesterday. Yea, I think
you're right. I believe both the overall devlink mutex and the device's
NVM acquire locking mechanism should be suitable to prevent access.

I was originally just trying to make it difficult to somehow start
updates or perform conflicting activity over multiple PFs at once.

Thanks,
Jake