netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/7] devlink: Adding perm config of link settings

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:   Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:22:03 -0400
From:   Steve Lin <steven.lin1@...adcom.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] devlink: Adding perm config of link settings

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
> Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:39:42PM CEST, steven.lin1@...adcom.com wrote:
>>On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> You need to split the config option to those that are per-port and to
>>> those that are per-asic. For each family, you have to use ither
>>> devlink_port of devlink handle. Also, you need to split into those that are
>>> permanent and to those who are teporary (until reset). I think you might
>>> need some flags for that.
>>>
>>
>>All these are permanent; none are temporary - that's (partially) why
>>we consider these to be devlink/device parameters rather than a
>>netdev/ethtool thing, since they take effect after the next reset and
>>before any drivers are loaded (i.e. the card uses these parameters for
>>its default/startup configuration).
>
> Understood. But I think that this iface should be capable to serve the
> options of non-permanent as well. Or this could be 2 separate interfaces
> with 2 separate cmd pair. Thoughts?
>

I would prefer to keep this command for permanent config only, and use
a separate command for transient configuration.  I think that
transient device configuration should be tackled in the separate
discussion that was started in the RFC version of this patchset,
related to moving ethtool ops to devlink/netlink.

I think that's a separate topic that requires a little more thought
and discussion, but really isn't that related to this current patchset
for permanent device configuration.  What do you think?

Steve