netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/7] net: devlink: Add unused port flavour

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: <61860d84-d0c6-c711-0674-774149a8d0af@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:36:50 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/7] net: devlink: Add unused port flavour



On 9/28/2020 3:35 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 00:07:30 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:05:08PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 02:31:55PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 23:06:26 +0200 Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>>> Not all ports of a switch need to be used, particularly in embedded
>>>>> systems. Add a port flavour for ports which physically exist in the
>>>>> switch, but are not connected to the front panel etc, and so are
>>>>> unused.
>>>>
>>>> This is missing the explanation of why reporting such ports makes sense.
>>>
>>> Because this is a core devlink patch, we're talking really generalistic
>>> here.
>>
>> Hi Vladimir
>>
>> I don't think Jakub is questioning the why. He just wants it in the
>> commit message.
> 
> Ack, I think we need to clearly say when those should be exposed.
> Most ASICs will have disabled ports, and we don't expect NICs to
> suddenly start reporting ports for all PCI PFs they may have.
> 
> Also I keep thinking that these ports and all their objects should
> be hidden under some switch from user space perspective because they
> are unlikely to be valuable to see for a normal user. Thoughts?

Hidden in what sense? They are already hidden in that there is no 
net_device object being created for them. Are you asking for adding 
another option to say, devlink show like:

devlink show -a

which would also show the ports that are disabled during a dump?
-- 
Florian