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:   Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:43:21 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Cc:     Parav Pandit <>, Parav Pandit <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] devlink: Consider other controller while
 building phys_port_name

Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 09:31:23PM CEST, wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 07:54:39 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 05:23:58PM CEST, 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.
>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?

Okay. Sounds fine. Let's put the controller number there for all ports.
ctrlnum X external true
ctrlnum Y external false

if (!external)
	ignore the ctrlnum when generating the name

>> >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