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: <20200810111727.6f55943d@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:17:27 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        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

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:09:20 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
> >> But I am still missing something: fw-activate implies that it will 
> >> activate a new FW image stored on flash, pending activation. What if the 
> >> user wants to reset and reload the FW if no new FW pending ? Should we 
> >> add --force option to fw-activate level ?  
> > 
> > Since reload does not check today if anything changed - i.e. if reload
> > is actually needed, neither should fw-activate, IMO. I'd expect the
> > "--force behavior" to be the default.
> >   
> 
> Yep. What about if there is HW/FW that can't initiate the fw-activate
> reset unless there is a pending update? I think ice firmware might
> respond to the "please reset/activate" command with a specific status
> code indicating that no update was pending.
> 
> I think the simplest solution is to just interpret this as a success.
> Alternatively we could report a specific error to inform user that no
> activation took place?

I'd do EOPNOTSUPP + extack.