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: <Y5Gc6E+mpWeVSBL7@nanopsycho>
Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2022 09:14:32 +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

Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 05:59:41PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>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?

The netdevices to control are already in the container. Isn't that
enough?


>
>> 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? :)

Yeah...


>
>> 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?

Well, as I wrote. The only part needed to be network namespaced are the
netdev related pins. And netdevices have netns support. So my question
again, why is that not enough?