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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 03:06:18 +0000 From: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 5/6] devlink: Introduce controller number > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> > Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 12:20 AM > > Humm? > > > A devlink instance holds ports of two types of controllers. > > (1) controller discovered on same system where eswitch resides This is > > the case where PCI PF/VF of a controller and devlink eswitch instance > > both are located on a single system. > > (2) controller located on external host system. > > This is the case where a controller is located in one system and its > > devlink eswitch ports are located in a different system. > > > > When a devlink eswitch instance serves the devlink ports of both > > controllers together, PCI PF/VF numbers may overlap. > > Due to this a unique phys_port_name cannot be constructed. > > > > For example in below such system controller-A and controller-B, each > > has PCI PF pf0 whose eswitch ports are present in controller-A. > > These results in phys_port_name as "pf0" for both. > > Similar problem exists for VFs and upcoming Sub functions. > > > > An example view of two controller systems: > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > | | > > | --------- --------- | > > ------------- | | vf(s) | | sf(s) | | > > | server | | ------- ----/---- ---/----- ------- | > > | pci rc |=====| pf0 |______/________/ | pf1 | | > > | connection| | ------- ------- | > > ------------- | | controller-B (no eswitch) (controller num=1)| > > ------|---------------------------------------------- > > (internal wire) > > | > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > | devlink eswitch ports and reps | > > | --------------------------------------------- | > > | |ctrl-A | ctrl-B | ctrl-A | ctrl-B | ctrl-B | | > > | |pf0 | pf0 | pf0vfN | pf0vfN | pf0sfN | | > > | --------------------------------------------- | > > ^^^^^^^^ > > ctrl-A doesn't have VFs, but sfs below. > Right. Instead of showing too many overlapping devices in both controllers, picked sf ports. > pf1 reprs are not listed. > It was hard to cover replicate same topology as that of pf0, so It is omitted. I guess I should put that note to avoid this confusion. > Perhaps it'd be clearer if controllers where not interleaved? Yes, Jiri also pointed out to get rid of naming A and B and use numbers. Little older diagram got it. :-( > > > | | > > | --------- | > > | | sf(s) | | > > | ------- ---/----- ------- | > > | | pf0 |_____/ | pf1 | | > > | ------- ------- | > > | | > > | local controller-A (eswitch) (controller num=0) | > > -----------------------------------------------------
Powered by blists - more mailing lists