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: <20221207085941.3b56bc8c@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 08:59:41 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
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

On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 14:10:42 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> 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?

Running DPLL control in a namespace / container.

I mean - I generally think netns is overused, but yes, it's what
containers use, so I think someone may want to develop their
timer controller SW in as a container?

> 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.

If only we stuck to the "one devlink instance per ASIC", huh? :)

> 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?

So we can't use devlink or netdev. Hm. So what do we do?
Make DPLLs only visible in init_net? And require init_net admin?
And when someone comes asking we add an explicit "move to netns"
command to DPLL?