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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 4 Aug 2020 12:04:18 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.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

Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 10:57:03PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 16:14:42 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >devlink dev reload [ net-ns-respawn { PID | NAME | ID } ] [ driver-param-init
>> >] [ fw-activate [ --live] ]  
>> 
>> Jakub, why do you prefer to have another extra level-specific option
>> "live"? I think it is clear to have it as a separate level. The behaviour
>> of the operation is quite different.
>
>I was trying to avoid having to provide a Cartesian product of
>operation and system disruption level, if any other action can
>be done "live" at some point.
>
>But no strong feelings about that one.
>
>Really, as long as there is no driver-specific defaults (or as 
>little driver-specific anything as possible) and user actions 
>are clearly expressed (fw-reset does not necessarily imply
>fw-activation) - the API will be fine IMO.

Clear actions, that is what I'm fine with.

But not sure how you think we can achieve no driver-specific defaults.
We have them already :/ I don't think we can easily remove them and not
break user expectations.