netdev - Re: [PATCH] octeontx2-nicvf: Add netdev interface support for SDP VF 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: <CA+sq2Cc9E+vSusMd+zZtkN0UOE_vtL5jT7XjE5t9gyCRn0sA_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:51:24 +0530
From:   Sunil Kovvuri <sunil.kovvuri@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] octeontx2-nicvf: Add netdev interface support for SDP VF devices

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 10:28 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:44:10 +0530 Sunil Kovvuri wrote:
> > > Nope, I have not accepted that. I was just too lazy to send a revert
> > > after it was merged.
> >
> > What is the objection here ?
> > Is kernel netdev not supposed to be used with-in end-point ?
>
> Yes.

If you don't mind can you please write these rules somewhere and push
to kernel documentation.
So that we are clear on what restrictions kernel netdev imposes.

>
> > If customers want to use upstream kernel with-in endpoint and not
> > proprietary SDK, why to impose restrictions.
>
> Because our APIs and interfaces have associated semantics. That's
> the primary thing we care about upstream. You need to use or create
> standard interfaces, not come up with your own thing and retrofit it
> into one of the APIs. Not jam PTP configuration thru devlink params,
> or use netdevs to talk to your FW because its convenient. Trust me,
> you're not the first one to come up with this idea.
>

I see that you are just assuming how it's used and making comments.
In scenarios where OcteonTx2 is used as a offload card (DPU) or VRAN,
some of the pkts
will be sent to host for processing. This path is used to forward such
pkts to host and viceversa.
It's not for internal communication between host and firmware.

It's using the standard netdev interfaces, APIs and network stack
packet forwarding.
I don't understand what's wrong with this.

The devlink params are being used across drivers to do proprietary HW settings.
There is no PTP protocol or pkt related configuration that's being
jammed through in the other patch.

> Frankly if the octeontx2 team continues on its current path I think
> the driver should be removed. You bring no benefit to the community
> I don't see why we'd give you the time of day.

That's an unnecessary comment crossing the lines.

Thanks,
Sunil.