netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] devlink: Add support to set port function as trusted

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: <20220111102005.4f0fa3a0@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jan 2022 10:20:05 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>
Cc:     Sunil Sudhakar Rani <sunrani@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Bodong Wang <bodong@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] devlink: Add support to set port function
 as trusted

On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:57:54 +0000 Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > What shortcomings do you see in the finer granular approach we want to
> > > go to enable/disable On a per feature basis instead of global knob?  
> > 
> > I was replying to Saeed so I assumed some context which you probably lack.
> > Granular approach is indeed better, what I was referring to when I said "prefer
> > an API as created by this patch" was having an dedicated devlink op, instead of
> > the use of devlink params.  
> 
> This discussed got paused in yet another year-end holidays. :)
> Resuming now and refreshing everyone's cache.
> 
> We need to set/clear the capabilities of the function before deploying such function.
> As you suggested we discussed the granular approach and at present we have following features to on/off.
> 
> Generic features:
> 1. ipsec offload

Why is ipsec offload a trusted feature?

> 2. ptp device

Makes sense.

> Device specific:
> 1. sw steering

No idea what that is/entails.

> 2. physical port counters query

Still don't know why VF needs to know phy counters.

> It was implicit that a driver API callback addition for both types of features is not good.
> Devlink port function params enables to achieve both generic and device specific features.
> Shall we proceed with port function params? What do you think?

I already addressed this. I don't like devlink params. They muddy the
water between vendor specific gunk and bona fide Linux uAPI. Build a
normal dedicated API.