netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/7] devlink: Adding NPAR permanent config parameters

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:   Thu, 19 Oct 2017 11:12:57 -0400
From:   Steve Lin <steven.lin1@...adcom.com>
To:     Yuval Mintz <yuvalm@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "michael.chan@...adcom.com" <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        "linville@...driver.com" <linville@...driver.com>,
        "gospo@...adcom.com" <gospo@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] devlink: Adding NPAR permanent config parameters

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Yuval Mintz <yuvalm@...lanox.com> wrote:
>> DEVLINK_ATTR_PERM_CFG_NPAR_BW_RESERVATION_VALID: 1 to use
>> BW_RESERVATION setting, 0 to ignore.
>>
> ...
>> DEVLINK_ATTR_PERM_CFG_NPAR_BW_LIMIT_VALID: 1 to use BW_LIMIT
>> setting, 0 to ignore.
>
> While it probably ties to different fields in your NVM layout why would the user
> require specific attributes for these? Why not have values in the actual
> attributes indicating of this status?

Hi Yuval,

Does having the separate valid flag present any difficulties?  There
are lots of implementation options here (a limit or reservation value
of 0 could mean invalid, or we could define (1 << 31) to be a valid
flag when setting the value, etc.), and I'm not necessarily tied to
doing it this way, but it seemed a straightforward way to represent
the validity of the other field.

Thanks again,
Steve