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: <20250423151745.0b5a8e77@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 15:17:45 -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 Wed, 23 Apr 2025 13:23:46 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >Because you don't have a PF port for local PF.
> >
> >The information you want to convey is which of the PF ports is "local".
> >I believe we discussed this >5 years ago when I was trying to solve
> >this exact problem for the NFP.  
> 
> If you instantiate a VF devlink instance, you would also like to see
> "local" VF port? Does not make any sense to me honestly.
> 
> Why PF needs to have "local" PF port, isn't it a bit like Uroboros? The
> PF devlink instance exists, the ports are links to other entities.
> What's the reason to have a like to itself?

Neither do VF devlink instances in the first place.

> >The topology information belongs on the ports, not the main instance.  
> 
> It's not a topology information. It's an entity property. Take VF for
> example. VF also exposes FunctionUID under devlink info, same as PF.
> There is no port instance under VF devlink instance. Same for SF.
> Do you want to create dummy ports here just to have the "local" link?
> 
> I have to be missing something, the drawing as I see it fits 100%.

Very hard to understand where you're coming from since you haven't
explained why the user has to suddenly care about this new property
you're adding.