Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] bnxt: Create an auxiliary device for fwctl_bnxt

From: Saeed Mahameed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:34:40 -0800

On 18 Feb 15:31, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:42:48 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
>> On 2/18/25 1:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:24:35AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Any resources in use by the netdev stack can only be created and
>> >> modified by established netdev tools."
>> >
>> > That is already a restriction described in the doc, not just netdev,
>> > but any kernel driver running with any kernel owned resource. You
>> > can't reach in and change kernel owned objects.
>>
>> ok, then Jakub's concerns should be met.
>
>I appreciate the doc, but no, it's not enough. The fwctl interface must
>not be exposed if RDMA is disabled or driver not loaded.
>

Jason's proposal was completely different, he asked that if only netdev is
present then we can explicitly block fwctl. Tying fwctl to RDMA makes no
sense for most of the drivers that will be using it, so I don't support
such suggestion not even blocking fwctl for netdev only systems, if one
can load RDMA and still can control the device, then Jakub's concerns are
not met, so what's the point?

The whole Idea of blocking fwctl in specific configurations has no
technical merit, if someone doesn't want fwctl in their system, then let's
implement a devlink knob like we have for all ulps.