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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:03:19 -0800
From:   Alexander Duyck <>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <>
Cc:     Parav Pandit <>, David Ahern <>,
        Saeed Mahameed <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Leon Romanovsky <>,
        Netdev <>,
        "" <>,
        David Ahern <>,
        Jacob Keller <>,
        Sridhar Samudrala <>,
        "Ertman, David M" <>,
        Dan Williams <>,
        Kiran Patil <>,
        Greg KH <>
Subject: Re: [net-next v4 00/15] Add mlx5 subfunction support

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 12:18 PM Jason Gunthorpe <> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:22:12AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > Also as far as the patch count complaints I have seen in a few threads
> > I would be fine with splitting things up so that the devlink and aux
> > device creation get handled in one set, and then we work out the
> > details of mlx5 attaching to the devices and spawning of the SF
> > netdevs in another since that seems to be where the debate is.
> It doesn't work like that. The aux device creates a mlx5_core and
> every mlx5_core can run mlx5_en.

The aux device is still just a device isn't it? Until you register a
driver that latches on to "MLX5_SF_DEV_ID_NAME" the device is there
and it should function like an unbound/idle VF.

> This really isn't the series to raise this feature request. Adding an
> optional short cut path to VF/SF is something that can be done later
> if up to date benchmarks show it has value. There is no blocker in
> this model to doing that.

That is the point of contention that we probably won't solve. I feel
like if we are going to put out something that is an alternative to
the macvlan and SR-IOV approaches it should address the issues
resolved in both. Right now this just throws up yet another
virtualization solution that ends up reintroducing many of the
existing problems we already had with SR-IOV, and possibly
exacerbating them by allowing for an even greater number of

Anyway I have made my opinion known, and I am not in the position to
block the patches since I am not the maintainer.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists