netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 12/14] sfc: set EF100 VF MAC address through representor

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, 28 Jul 2022 18:45:27 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Cc:     ecree@...inx.com, davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com,
        linux-net-drivers@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 12/14] sfc: set EF100 VF MAC address through
 representor

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 21:23:23 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
> Sadly I was too busy with EF100 bring-up, and naïvely assumed that I
>  could safely ignore devlink port stuff as it was so obviously going
>  to be a classic Mellanox design: tasteless, overweight, and not
>  cleanly mappable onto any other vendor.  Which seems to have been
>  true but they've managed to make it the standard anyway by virtue
>  of being there first, as usual :'(
> (Yeah, I probably shouldn't publicly say things like that about
>  another vendor's devs.  But I'm getting frustrated at this recurring
>  pattern.)

I spend an unhealthy amount of time thinking about the problem 
of vendors not paying attention when new uAPIs are forged.
Happy to try things.

> Devlink port function *would* be useful for administering functions
>  that don't have a representor.  I just can't see any good reason
>  why such things should ever exist.

The SmartNIC/DPU/IPU/isolated hv+IO CPU can expose storage functions
to the peer. nVidia is working on extending the devlink rate limit API
to cover such cases.