linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 09/13] devlink: Add enable_remote_dev

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: <f54924e8-eb3f-18ab-a016-276560086a5b@mellanox.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:08:42 +0300
From:   Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 09/13] devlink: Add enable_remote_dev_reset
 generic parameter


On 7/29/2020 11:57 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 17:42:12 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
>> On 7/28/2020 3:59 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 14:02:29 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
>>>> The enable_remote_dev_reset devlink param flags that the host admin
>>>> allows device resets that can be initiated by other hosts. This
>>>> parameter is useful for setups where a device is shared by different
>>>> hosts, such as multi-host setup. Once the user set this parameter to
>>>> false, the driver should NACK any attempt to reset the device while the
>>>> driver is loaded.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>
>>> There needs to be a devlink event generated when reset is triggered
>>> (remotely or not).
>>>
>>> You're also missing failure reasons. Users need to know if the reset
>>> request was clearly nacked by some host, not supported, etc. vs
>>> unexpected failure.
>> I will fix and send extack message to the user accordingly.
> I'd suggest the reason codes to be somewhat standard.
>
> The groups I can think of:
>   - timeout - device did not respond to the reset request
>   - device reject - FW or else has nacked the activation req
>   - host incapable - one of the participating hosts (in MH) is not
>     capable of handling live activation
>   - host denied - one of the participating hosts has NACKed
>   - host timeout - one of the p. hosts did not ack or done the procedure
>     in time (e.g. has not toggled the link)
>   - failed reset - the activation itself had failed
>   - failed reinit - one of p. hosts was not able to cleanly come back up


Sounds good, that seems to cover all options of fw_reset process to fail.