netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] devlink: add function unique identifier to devlink dev info

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250418172015.7176c3c0@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 17:20:15 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, tariqt@...dia.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
 horms@...nel.org, donald.hunter@...il.com,
 kalesh-anakkur.purayil@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] devlink: add function unique identifier
 to devlink dev info

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:15:01 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Ports does not look suitable to me. In case of a function with multiple
> physical ports, would the same id be listed for multiple ports? What
> about representors?

You're stuck in nVidia thinking. PF port != Ethernet port.
I said PF port.

> This is a function propertly, therefore it makes sense to me to put it
> on devlink instance as devlink instance represents the function.
> 
> Another patchset that is most probably follow-up on this by one of my
> colleagues will introduce fuid propertly on "devlink port function".
> By that and the info exposed by this patch, you would be able to identify
> which representor relates to which function cross-hosts. I think that
> your question is actually aiming at this, isn't it?

Maybe it's time to pay off some technical debt instead of solving all
problems with yet another layer of new attributes :(