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: <ZOTy+sdg6raDGGUu@nanopsycho>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 19:40:10 +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

Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 05:28:33PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>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?

Okay. Will do that in a follow-up.


>
>> 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.

Well, you are right, okay.