netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 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 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:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:12:51 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/4] net/mlx5: Introduce devlink param to
 disable SF aux dev probe

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:20:17 +0200 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
> v1->v2:
>  - updated example to make clear SF port and SF device creation PFs
>  - added example when SF port and device creation PFs are on different hosts

How does this address my comments?

We will not define Linux APIs based on what your firmware can or 
cannot do today. Can we somehow avoid having another frustrating
and drawn out discussion that hinges on that point?

Otherwise, why the global policy and all the hoops to jump thru?
User wants a device with a vnet, give them a device with a vnet.

You left out from your steps how ESW learns that the device has 
to be spawned. Given there's some form of communication between
user intent and ESW the location of the two is completely irrelevant.
You were right to treat the two cases as equivalent in the cover 
letter for v1.