netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] net/mlx5: Introduce devlink param to disable SF aux dev probe

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, 10 Feb 2022 12:28:05 +0200
From:   Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] net/mlx5: Introduce devlink param to disable
 SF aux dev probe


On 2/10/2022 9:02 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 02:25:25AM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:39:54 +0200 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
>>> Well we don't have the SFs at that stage, how can we tell which SF will
>>> use vnet and which SF will use eth ?
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 10:57:21 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> It's a different user. One works with the eswitch and creates the port
>>> function. The other one takes the created instance and works with it.
>>> Note that it may be on a different host.
>> It is a little confusing, so I may well be misunderstanding but the
>> cover letter says:
>>
>> $ devlink dev param set pci/0000:08:00.0 name enable_sfs_aux_devs \
>>               value false cmode runtime
>>
>> $ devlink port add pci/0000:08:00.0 flavour pcisf pfnum 0 sfnum 11
>>
>> So both of these run on the same side, no?
Yes.
>> What I meant is make the former part of the latter:
>>
>> $ devlink port add pci/0000:08:00.0 flavour pcisf pfnum 0 sfnum 11 noprobe
> I see. So it would not be "global policy" but per-instance option during
> creation. That makes sense. I wonder if the HW is capable of such flow,
> Moshe, Saeed?


LGTM. Thanks.

>
>>
>> Maybe worth clarifying - pci/0000:08:00.0 is the eswitch side and
>> auxiliary/mlx5_core.sf.1 is the... "customer" side, correct?
> Yep.