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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2023 10:45:19 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
        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" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 1/2] devlink: expose port function commands
 to assign VFs to multiple netdevs

Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 03:14:27AM CET, yinjun.zhang@...igine.com wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 16:15:58 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 03:20:48AM CET, yinjun.zhang@...igine.com wrote:
>> >
>> >Let me take NFP implementation for example here, all the VFs created from the single PF
>> >use p0 as the uplink port by default. In legacy mode, by no means we can choose other
>> 
>> Legacy is legacy. I believe it is like 5 years already no knobs for
>> legacy mode are accepted. You should not use it for new features.
>> Why this is any different?
>> 
>> Implement TC offloading and then you can ballance the hell out of the
>> thing :)
>
>I understand in switchdev mode, the fine-grained manipulation by TC can do it.
>While legacy has fixed forwarding rule, and we hope it can be implemented without
>too much involved configuration from user if they only want legacy forwarding.
>
>As multi-port mapping to one PF NIC is scarce, maybe we should implement is as
>vendor specific configuration, make sense?

No, it does not make sense what so ever.

You want to extend legacy, which is no longer an option (for many years).

If you need this feature, implement switchdev mode for your device.
Simple as that. I think this was clearly stated in multiple emails in
this thread, I don't follow why it needs to be repeated.


>
>> 
>> 
>> >ports as outlet. So what we're doing here is try to simulate one-port-per-PF case, to split
>> >one switch-set to several switch-sets with every physical port as the uplink port respectively,
>> >by grouping the VFs and assigning them to physical ports.