netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/13] nfp: add support for multi-pf configuration

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, 18 Aug 2023 09:03:08 +0200
From: Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
	Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>,
	Tianyu Yuan <tianyu.yuan@...igine.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	oss-drivers@...igine.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/13] nfp: add support for multi-pf
 configuration

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 07:22:05PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 16:38:59 +0200 Louis Peens wrote:
> > As part of v1 there was also some partially finished discussion about
> > devlink allowing to bind to multiple bus devices. This series creates a
> > devlink instance per PF, and the comment was asking if this should maybe
> > change to be a single instance, since it is still a single device. For
> > the moment we feel that this is a parallel issue to this specific
> > series, as it seems to be already implemented this way in other places,
> > and this series would be matching that.
> > 
> > We are curious about this idea though, as it does seem to make sense if
> > the original devlink idea was that it should have a one-to-one
> > correspondence per ASIC. Not sure where one would start with this
> > though, on first glance it looks like the assumption that devlink is
> > only connected to a single bus device is embedded quite deep. This
> > probably needs commenting/discussion with somebody that has pretty good
> > knowledge of devlink core.
> 
> How do you suggest we move forward? This is a community project after
> all, _someone_ has to start the discussion and then write the code.

This is a good point, it would have been nice if things could just be
wished into existence. I will try to negotiate for some time to be spend
on this from our side, and then raise a new topic for discussion.