netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next v7 0/4] Dynamically assign MSI-X vectors count

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, 11 Mar 2021 16:22:34 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next v7 0/4] Dynamically assign MSI-X vectors count

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:16:02PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:17:29PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 03:34:01PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > 
> > > I'm not so much worried about management software as the fact that
> > > this is a vendor specific implementation detail that is shaping how
> > > the kernel interfaces are meant to work. Other than the mlx5 I don't
> > > know if there are any other vendors really onboard with this sort of
> > > solution.
> > 
> > I know this is currently vendor-specific, but I thought the value
> > proposition of dynamic configuration of VFs for different clients
> > sounded compelling enough that other vendors would do something
> > similar.  But I'm not an SR-IOV guy and have no vendor insight, so
> > maybe that's not the case?
> 
> NVMe has a similar feature defined by the standard where a PF controller can
> dynamically assign MSIx vectors to VFs. The whole thing is managed in user
> space with an ioctl, though. I guess we could wire up the driver to handle it
> through this sysfs interface too, but I think the protocol specific tooling is
> more appropriate for nvme.

Really? Why not share a common uAPI?

Do you have a standards reference for this?

Jason