linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 13/22] ethtool: provide driver/device information in GET

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, 28 Mar 2019 13:09:04 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 13/22] ethtool: provide driver/device
 information in GET_INFO request

On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:34:39 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:53:47AM CET, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:21:26AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:  
> >> Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:25:54PM CET, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote:  
> >> >
> >> >I'm all for implementing new features which are are related to physical
> >> >device (ASIC) rather than network interface only in devlink (at the
> >> >level of kernel-userspace interface). But for features already provided
> >> >by ethtool (userspace utility) I can't help seeing the state of devlink
> >> >support in NIC drivers as a serious blocker.  
> >> 
> >> What I'm thinking about at for some time now would be en explicit
> >> default devlink and devlink_port registration for every netdev for
> >> drivers that does not support devlink themselves. I need to think about
> >> it more, but it seems doable. Then we can hang appropriate things there
> >> and make the ethtoolnl/devlink separation clear. I believe we need to do
> >> it.  
> >
> >That sounds great, such "generic devlink" implementation would be a way
> >around. Kernel could then emulate features which are not implemented by
> >an actual devlink handler (i.e. "generic devlink" is used or particular
> >handler is missing) by falling back to ethtool_ops handler so that
> >userspace could rely on devlink API for things like device information,
> >various dumps, flashing etc. without losing anything.  
> 
> Yep. Plan to do that next week.

The problem with the main part of dev info - fw_version - is that it is
often overloaded in drivers and becomes impossible to parse for users.
I'd rather we didn't dump that nasty chaos in devlink info and let it
die with ethtool IOCTL.

Flashing can also be handled at user space tool level.