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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Thu, 19 Nov 2020 17:31:42 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>,
        "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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/13] Add mlx5 subfunction support

On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 21:57:57 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 21:35 -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.
> 
> We are not slicing up any queues, from our HW and FW perspective SF ==
> VF literally, a full blown HW slice (Function), with isolated control
> and data plane of its own, this is very different from VMDq and more
> generic and secure. an SF device is exactly like a VF, doesn't steal or
> share any HW resources or control/data path with others. SF is
> basically SRIOV done right.
> 
> this series has nothing to do with netdev, if you look at the list of
> files Parav is touching, there is 0 change in our netdev stack :) ..
> all Parav is doing is adding the API to create/destroy SFs and
> represents the low level SF function to devlink as a device, just
> like a VF.

Ack, the concern is about the vdpa, not SF. 
So not really this patch set.