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: <20230822082833.1cb68ef7@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 08:28:33 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
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

On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 08:36:06 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >I'm thinking about containers. Since the SF configuration is currently
> >completely vendor ad-hoc I'm trying to establish who's supposed to be
> >in control of the devlink instance of an SF - orchestrator or the
> >workload. We should pick one and force everyone to fall in line.  
> 
> I think that both are valid. In the VF case, the workload (VM) owns the
> devlink instance and netdev. In the SF case:
> 1) It could be the same. You can reload SF into netns, then
>    the container has them both. That would provide the container
>    more means (e.g. configuration of rdma,netdev,vdev etc).
> 2) Or, your can only put netdev into netns.

Okay, can you document that?

> Both usecases are valid. But back to my question regarding to this
> patchsets. Do you see the need to expose netns for nested port function
> devlink instance? Even now, I still don't.

It's not a huge deal but what's the problem with adding the netns id?
It's probably 50 LoC, trivial stuff.