netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] devlink: Consider other controller while building phys_port

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: <20200903055439.GA2997@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 07:54:39 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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

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. 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

>
>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.