netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/4] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

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: <Y48CS98KYCMJS9uM@nanopsycho>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 09:50:19 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        "Olech, Milena" <milena.olech@...el.com>,
        "Michalik, Michal" <michal.michalik@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/4] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 01:19:33AM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 11:32:04 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> I believe we should do it only the other way around. Assign
>> >> dpll_pin pointer to struct net_device and expose this over new attr
>> >> IFLA_DPLL_PIN over RT netlink.  
>> >
>> >The ID table is global, what's the relationship between DPLLs
>> >and net namespaces? We tie DPLLs to a devlink instance which
>> >has a namespace? We pretend namespaces don't exist? :S  
>> 
>> Well, if would be odd to put dpll itself into a namespace. It might not
>> have anything to do with networking, for example in case of ptp_ocp.
>> What would mean for a dpll to be in a net namespace?
>
>Yeah, that's a slightly tricky one. We'd probably need some form 
>of second order association. Easiest if we link it to a devlink
>instance, I reckon. The OCP clock card does not have netdevs so we
>can't follow the namespace of netdevs (which would be the second
>option).

Why do we need this association at all?