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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20200819151815.GA2575@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:18:15 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        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

Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 04:23:25PM CEST, moshe@...dia.com wrote:
>
>On 8/19/2020 3:46 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:18:22PM CEST, moshe@...dia.com wrote:
>> > On 8/19/2020 3:10 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > > 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?
>> > 
>> > Right, we can't tell all reset types driver may have, but we can tell which
>> > reload actions were done.
>> > 
>> > > 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.
>> > 
>> > I will add counters on which reload were done. reload_down()/up() can return
>> > which actions were actually done and devlink will show counters.
>> Why a counter? Just return what was done over netlink reply.
>
>
>Such counters can be useful for debugging, telling which reload actions were
>done on this dev from the point it was up.

Not sure why this is any different from other commands...

>