netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/3] net/mlx5e: Prevent entering switchdev mode with inconsistent netns

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

Message-ID: <20250911171128.42d0b935@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 17:11:28 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>
Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Saeed Mahameed
 <saeedm@...dia.com>, "Leon Romanovsky" <leon@...nel.org>, Mark Bloch
 <mbloch@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Gal Pressman
 <gal@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/3] net/mlx5e: Prevent entering switchdev mode with
 inconsistent netns

On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:48:24 +0800 Jianbo Liu wrote:
> >> There is a requirement from customer who wants to manage openvswitch in
> >> a container. But he can't complete the steps (changing eswitch and
> >> configuring OVS) in the container if the netns are different.  
> > 
> > You're preventing a configuration which you think is "bad" (for a
> > reason unknown). How is _rejecting_ a config enabling you to fulfill
> > some "customer requirement" which sounds like having all interfaces
> > in a separate ns?
> 
> My apologies, I wasn't clear. The problem is specific to the OVS control 
> plane. ovs-vsctl cannot manage the switch if the PF uplink and VF 
> representors are in different namespaces. When the PF is in a container 
> while the devlink instance is bound to the host, enabling switchdev 
> creates this exact split: the PF uplink stays in the container, while 
> the VF representors are created on the host.

So you're saying the user can mess up the configuration in a way that'd
prevent them from using OVS. No strong objection to the patch (assuming
commit message is improved), but I don't see how this is a fix.