linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 01/13] devlink: Add reload level option to devlink reload command

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]

Message-ID: <20200728135808.GC2207@nanopsycho>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:58:08 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 01/13] devlink: Add reload level option to
 devlink reload command

Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 02:58:02AM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:02:21 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
>> Add devlink reload level to allow the user to request a specific reload
>> level. The level parameter is optional, if not specified then driver's
>> default reload level is used (backward compatible).
>
>Please don't leave space for driver-specific behavior. The OS is
>supposed to abstract device differences away.

But this is needed to maintain the existing behaviour which is different
for different drivers.


>
>Previously the purpose of reload was to activate new devlink params
>(with driverinit cmode), now you want the ability to activate new
>firmware. Let users specify their intent and their constraints.
>
>> Reload levels supported are:
>> driver: driver entities re-instantiation only.
>> fw_reset: firmware reset and driver entities re-instantiation.
>> fw_live_patch: firmware live patching only.
>
>I'm concerned live_patch is not first - it's the lowest impact (since
>it's live). Please make sure you clearly specify the expected behavior
>for the new API.
>
>The notion of multi-host is key for live patching, so it has to be
>mentioned.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>