netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Add mlx5 subfunction support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201119172930.11ab9e68@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:   Thu, 19 Nov 2020 17:29:30 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Add mlx5 subfunction support

On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 21:35:29 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/18/20 7:14 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:49:54 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:  
> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 09:11:20AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >>  
> >>>> Just to refresh all our memory, we discussed and settled on the flow
> >>>> in [2]; RFC [1] followed this discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> vdpa tool of [3] can add one or more vdpa device(s) on top of already
> >>>> spawned PF, VF, SF device.    
> >>>
> >>> Nack for the networking part of that. It'd basically be VMDq.    
> >>
> >> What are you NAK'ing?   
> > 
> > Spawning multiple netdevs from one device by slicing up its queues.  
> 
> Why do you object to that? Slicing up h/w resources for virtual what
> ever has been common practice for a long time.

My memory of the VMDq debate is hazy, let me rope in Alex into this.
I believe the argument was that we should offload software constructs,
not create HW-specific APIs which depend on HW availability and
implementation. So the path we took was offloading macvlan.