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: <Y5CQ0qddxuUQg8R8@nanopsycho>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 14:10:42 +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 06:27:05PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 09:50:19 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> 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?
>
>Someone someday may want netns delegation and if we don't have the
>support from the start we may break backward compat introducing it.

Hmm. Can you imagine a usecase?

Link to devlink instance btw might be a problem. In case of mlx5, one
dpll instance is going to be created for 2 (or more) PFs. 1 per ConnectX
ASIC as there is only 1 clock there. And PF devlinks can come and go,
does not make sense to link it to any of them.

Thinking about it a bit more, DPLL itself has no network notion. The
special case is SyncE pin, which is linked to netdevice. Just a small
part of dpll device. And the netdevice already has notion of netns.
Isn't that enough?