netdev - Re: [patch net-next 0/4] net/mlx5: expose peer SF devlink instance

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: <ZN8eCeDGcQSCi1D6@nanopsycho>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 09:30:17 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, moshe@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
	shayd@...dia.com, leon@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 0/4] net/mlx5: expose peer SF devlink instance

Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 04:34:20AM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 16:51:51 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Currently, the user can instantiate new SF using "devlink port add"
>> command. That creates an E-switch representor devlink port.
>> 
>> When user activates this SF, there is an auxiliary device created and
>> probed for it which leads to SF devlink instance creation.
>> 
>> There is 1:1 relationship between E-switch representor devlink port and
>> the SF auxiliary device devlink instance.
>> 
>> Expose the relation to the user by introducing new netlink attribute
>> DEVLINK_PORT_FN_ATTR_DEVLINK which contains the devlink instance related
>> to devlink port function. This is done by patch #3.
>
>The devlink instance of the SF stays in the same network namespace 
>as the PF?

SF devlink instance is created in init_ns and can move to another one.
So no.

I was thinking about this, as with the devlink handles we are kind of in
between sysfs and network. We have concept of network namespace in
devlink, but mainly because of the related netdevices.

There is no possibility of collision of devlink handles in between
separate namespaces, the handle is ns-unaware. Therefore the linkage to
instance in different ns is okay, I believe. Even more, It is handy as
the user knows that there exists such linkage.

What do you think?