netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 00/10] Add support for resource abstraction

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, 27 Dec 2017 10:37:54 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, arkadis@...lanox.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
        saeedm@...lanox.com, matanb@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com,
        idosch@...lanox.com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
        pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com, john.hurley@...ronome.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, linville@...driver.com,
        gospo@...adcom.com, steven.lin1@...adcom.com, yuvalm@...lanox.com,
        ogerlitz@...lanox.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 00/10] Add support for resource abstraction

Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 09:23:31AM CET, andrew@...n.ch wrote:
>> >$ devlink resource show pci/0000:03:00.0
>> >pci/0000:03:00.0:
>> >  name kvd size 245760 size_valid true
>> >  resources:
>> >    name linear size 98304 occ 0
>> >    name hash_double size 60416
>> >    name hash_single size 87040
>> >
>> >So this 2700 has 3 resources that can be managed -- some table or
>> >resource or something named 'kvd' with linear, hash_double and
>> >hash_single sub-resources. What are these names referring too? The above
>> >output gives no description, and 'kvd' is not an industry term. Further,
>> 
>> This are internal resources specific to the ASIC. Would you like some
>> description to each or something like that?
>
>The fact you have decided to expose them means you expect people to
>change them. So yes, they need to be documented. Maybe add something
>to Documentation/ABI/stable/
>
>> So the showed relation to dpipe table would be enougn or you would still
>> like to see some description? I don't like the description concept here
>> as the relations to dpipe table should tell user exactly what he needs
>> to know.
>
>Documenting the ABI is good practice.

This is misunderstanding I believe. This is not about ABI. That is well
defined by the netlink attributes. This is about meaning of particular
ASIC-specific internal resources.


>
>   Andrew
>