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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <5abwoi3oh3jy7y65kybk42stfeu3a7bx4smx4bc5iueivusflj@qkttnjzlqzbl>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 11:18:23 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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

Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 02:20:15AM +0200, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>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.

PF port representor represents the eswitch side of the link to the
actual PF. The PF may or may not be on the same host.

Ethernet port is physical port.

Why this is nVidia thinking? How others understand it?


>
>> 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 :(

What do you mean by this? We need a way to identify port representor
(PF/VF/SF, does not matter which) and the other side of the wire that
may be on a different host. How else do you imagine to do the
identification of these 2 sides?