netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net/core: Add violation counters to VF statisctics

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]

Date:   Sun, 27 Aug 2017 20:43:06 -0400
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net/core: Add violation counters to VF
 statisctics

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:06:17 +0300, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> From: Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.com>
> 
> Add receive and transmit violation counters to be
> displayed in iproute2 VF statistics.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/if_link.h      |  2 ++
>  include/uapi/linux/if_link.h |  2 ++
>  net/core/rtnetlink.c         | 10 +++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/if_link.h b/include/linux/if_link.h
> index da70af27e42e..ebf3448acb5b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/if_link.h
> +++ b/include/linux/if_link.h
> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ struct ifla_vf_stats {
>  	__u64 tx_bytes;
>  	__u64 broadcast;
>  	__u64 multicast;
> +	__u64 rx_dropped;
> +	__u64 tx_dropped;

I'm a little concerned that you call those violation counters in the
commit message.  Do you expect them to only be used if the VF traffic
indeed violates some admin-set rules?  I would imaging HW/FW may drop
frames in certain situations and naming the counters *_dropped suggests
it would be OK to increment them even if the drop reason was not any
sort of violation.  Would you mind clarifying?