netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 03/10] devlink: Serialize access to rate domains

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: <20250225174005.189f048d@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:40:05 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Jiri Pirko
 <jiri@...dia.com>, Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>, Carolina Jubran
 <cjubran@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Mark Bloch
 <mbloch@...dia.com>, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>, Jonathan
 Corbet <corbet@....net>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Leon
 Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/10] devlink: Serialize access to rate
 domains

On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:36:07 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >The problem comes from having a devlink instance per function /
> >port rather than for the ASIC. Spawn a single instance and the
> >problem will go away 🤷️  
> 
> Yeah, we currently have VF devlink ports created under PF devlink instance.
> That is aligned with PCI geometry. If we have a single per-ASIC parent
> devlink, this does not change and we still need to configure cross
> PF devlink instances.

Why would there still be PF instances? I'm not suggesting that you
create a hierarchy of instances.

> The only benefit I see is that we don't need rate domain, but
> we can use parent devlink instance lock instead. The locking ordering
> might be a bit tricky to fix though.