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]

Message-ID: <YgS4dFHFPPMITaoV@nanopsycho>
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 08:02:12 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>,
        "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

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?
>
>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?


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

Yep.