netdev - RE: [PATCH linux-next v2 7/7] vdpa_sim_net: Add support for user supported devices

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: <BY5PR12MB4322AC0586A759C44CA44268DCD10@BY5PR12MB4322.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jan 2021 06:22:55 +0000
From:   Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
CC:     "mst@...hat.com" <mst@...hat.com>, Eli Cohen <elic@...dia.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH linux-next v2 7/7] vdpa_sim_net: Add support for user
 supported devices



> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 9:36 AM
> 
> 
> On 2021/1/4 下午3:21, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 12:35 PM
> >>
> >> On 2021/1/4 上午11:31, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >>>    static int __init vdpasim_net_init(void)
> >>>    {
> >>>    	int ret = 0;
> >>> @@ -176,6 +264,8 @@ static int __init vdpasim_net_init(void)
> >>>
> >>>    	if (default_device)
> >>>    		ret = vdpasim_net_default_dev_register();
> >>> +	else
> >>> +		ret = vdpasim_net_mgmtdev_init();
> >>>    	return ret;
> >>>    }
> >>>
> >>> @@ -183,6 +273,8 @@ static void __exit vdpasim_net_exit(void)
> >>>    {
> >>>    	if (default_device)
> >>>    		vdpasim_net_default_dev_unregister();
> >>> +	else
> >>> +		vdpasim_net_mgmtdev_cleanup();
> >>>    }
> >>>
> >>>    module_init(vdpasim_net_init);
> >>> -- 2.26.2
> >>
> >> I wonder what's the value of keeping the default device that is out
> >> of the control of management API.
> > I think we can remove it like how I did in the v1 version. And actual vendor
> drivers like mlx5_vdpa will likely should do only user created devices.
> > I added only for backward compatibility purpose, but we can remove the
> default simulated vdpa net device.
> > What do you recommend?
> 
> 
> I think we'd better mandate this management API. This can avoid vendor
> specific configuration that may complex management layer.
> 
Sounds good.
I will drop the patch that allows vdpasim_net default device via module parameter. Will post v3 with that removal.