netdev - Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 1/2] devlink: expose port function commands to assign VFs to multiple netdevs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y+OQmjJFeQeF2kJx@corigine.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2023 13:07:54 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Fei Qin <fei.qin@...igine.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...igine.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 1/2] devlink: expose port function commands
 to assign VFs to multiple netdevs

On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 12:40:45PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 04:36:02PM CET, simon.horman@...igine.com wrote:
> >From: Fei Qin <fei.qin@...igine.com>
> >
> >Multiple physical ports of the same NIC may share the single
> >PCI address. In some cases, assigning VFs to different physical
> >ports can be demanded, especially under high-traffic scenario.
> >Load balancing can be realized in virtualised use¬cases through
> >distributing packets between different physical ports with LAGs
> >of VFs which are assigned to those physical ports.
> >
> >This patch adds new attribute "vf_count" to 'devlink port function'
> >API which only can be shown and configured under devlink ports
> >with flavor "DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_PHYSICAL".
> 
> I have to be missing something. That is the meaning of "assigning VF"
> to a physical port? Why there should be any relationship between
> physical port and VF other than configured forwarding (using TC for
> example)?
> 
> This seems very wrong. Preliminary NAK.

Of course if TC is involved, then we have flexibility.

What we are talking about here is primarily legacy mode.
And the behaviour described would, when enabled allow NFP based NICs
to behave more like most other multi-port NICs.

That is, we can envisage a VEB with some VFs and one physical port.
And anther with other VFs and another physical port.

This is as opposed to a single VEB with all VFs, as is currently
the case on NFP based NICs (but not most other multi-port NICs).