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:   Wed, 2 Sep 2020 08:23:58 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Jiri Pirko <>
Cc:     Parav Pandit <>, Parav Pandit <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] devlink: Consider other controller while
 building phys_port_name

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:00:11 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> I didn't quite get the fact that you want to not show controller ID on the local
>>> port, initially.  
>> Mainly to not_break current users.  
> You don't have to take it to the name, unless "external" flag is set.
> But I don't really see the point of showing !external, cause such
> controller number would be always 0. Jakub, why do you think it is
> needed?

It may seem reasonable for a smartNIC where there are only two
controllers, and all you really need is that external flag. 

In a general case when users are trying to figure out the topology
not knowing which controller they are sitting at looks like a serious

Example - multi-host system and you want to know which controller you
are to run power cycle from the BMC side.

We won't be able to change that because it'd change the names for you.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists