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  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:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:31:23 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "roid@...lanox.com" <roid@...lanox.com>,
        "saeedm@...lanox.com" <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] devlink: Consider other controller while
 building phys_port_name

On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 07:54:39 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 05:23:58PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
> >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
> >limitation.  
> 
> I think we misunderstood each other. I never proposed just "external"
> flag.

Sorry, I was just saying that assuming a single host SmartNIC the
controller ID is not necessary at all. You never suggested that, I did. 
Looks like I just confused everyone with that comment :(

Different controller ID for different PFs but the same PCIe link would
be very wrong. So please clarify - if I have a 2 port smartNIC, with on
PCIe link to the host, and the embedded controller - what would I see?

> What I propose is either:
> 1) ecnum attribute absent for local
>    ecnum attribute absent set to 0 for external controller X
>    ecnum attribute absent set to 1 for external controller Y
>    ...
> 
> or:
> 2) ecnum attribute absent for local, external flag set to false
>    ecnum attribute absent set to 0 for external controller X, external flag set to true
>    ecnum attribute absent set to 1 for external controller Y, external flag set to true

I'm saying that I do want to see the the controller ID for all ports.

So:

3) local:   { "controller ID": x }
   remote1: { "controller ID": y, "external": true }
   remote1: { "controller ID": z, "external": true }

We don't have to put the controller ID in the name for local ports, but
the attribute should be reported. AFAIU name was your main concern, no?

> >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