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  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:   Tue, 19 May 2020 21:56:42 +0300
From:   Ido Schimmel <>
To:     Andrew Lunn <>
Cc:,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Ido Schimmel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] selftests: net: Add port split test

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 04:15:41PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > +# Test port split configuration using devlink-port width attribute.
> > +# The test is skipped in case the attribute is not available.
> > +#
> > +# First, check that all the ports with a width of 1 fail to split.
> > +# Second, check that all the ports with a width larger than 1 can be split
> > +# to all valid configurations (e.g., split to 2, split to 4 etc.)
> Hi Ido

Hi Andrew,

> I know very little about splitting ports. So these might be dumb
> questions.
> Is there a well defined meaning of width? Is it something which can be
> found in an 802.3 standard?

It's basically the number of lanes: If a port is a 100Gbps port and has
a width of 4, then every lane is running at 25Gbps. Splitting this port
to 4 (via 'devlink port split') allows you to get 4 ports each capable
of supporting speeds up to 25Gbps (the original netdev disappears).

Example splitter cable:

Some documentation from mlxsw Wiki:

> Is it well defined that all splits of the for 2, 4, 8 have to be
> supported?

That I don't actually know. It is true for Mellanox and I can only
assume it holds for other vendors. So far beside mlxsw only nfp
implemented port_split() callback. I see it has this check:

        if (eth_port.is_split || eth_port.port_lanes % count) {
                ret = -EINVAL;
                goto out;

So it seems to be consistent with mlxsw. Jakub will hopefully chime in
and keep me honest.

> Must all 40Gbps ports with a width of 4, be splitable to 2x
> 20Mps? It seems like some hardware might only allow 4x 10G?

Possible. There are many vendor-specific quirks in this area, as I'm
sure you know :)

> If 20Gbps is supported, can you then go recursive and split one of the
> 20G ports into 2x 10G, leaving the other as a 20G port?

Quite certain this is not supported by any vendor.

I assume you're asking because you are trying to see if the test is not
making some vendor-specific assumptions? Personally, I think it's not.
We decided to put it under net/ rather than drivers/net/mlxsw because we
always prefer to write tests that can be shared with others. This is
what actually motivated this work. We had a very Mellanox-specific test
in our regression and we wanted to remove it, but it was not possible to
write such a test without this attribute.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists