linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2 01/13] devlink: Add reload action 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]

Message-ID: <20200818171010.11e4b615@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:10:10 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2 01/13] devlink: Add reload action option
 to devlink reload command

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:10:36 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
> On 8/17/2020 7:36 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:37:40AM CEST, moshe@...lanox.com wrote:  
> >> Add devlink reload action to allow the user to request a specific reload
> >> action. The action parameter is optional, if not specified then devlink
> >> driver re-init action is used (backward compatible).
> >> Note that when required to do firmware activation some drivers may need
> >> to reload the driver. On the other hand some drivers may need to reset  
> > Sounds reasonable. I think it would be good to indicate that though. Not
> > sure how...  
> 
> Maybe counters on the actions done ? Actually such counters can be 
> useful on debug, knowing what reloads we had since driver was up.

Wouldn't we need to know all types of reset of drivers may do?

I think documenting this clearly should be sufficient.

A reset counter for the _requested_ reset type (fully maintained by
core), however - that may be useful. The question "why did this NIC
reset itself / why did the link just flap" comes up repeatedly.