linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v3 01/14] 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: <20200903124719.75325f0c@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:47:19 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>,
        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 v3 01/14] devlink: Add reload action option
 to devlink reload command

On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 07:57:29 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 05:30:25PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
> >On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:46:27 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:  
> >> >? Do we need such change there too or keep it as is, each action by itself
> >> >and return what was performed ?    
> >> 
> >> Well, I don't know. User asks for X, X should be performed, not Y or Z.
> >> So perhaps the return value is not needed.
> >> Just driver advertizes it supports X, Y, Z and the users says:
> >> 1) do X, driver does X
> >> 2) do Y, driver does Y
> >> 3) do Z, driver does Z
> >> [
> >> I think this kindof circles back to the original proposal...  
> >
> >Why? User does not care if you activate new devlink params when
> >activating new firmware. Trust me. So why make the user figure out
> >which of all possible reset option they should select? If there is 
> >a legitimate use case to limit what is reset - it should be handled
> >by a separate negative attribute, like --live which says don't reset
> >anything.  
> 
> I see. Okay. Could you please sum-up the interface as you propose it?

What I proposed on v1, pass requested actions as a bitfield, driver may
perform more actions, we can return performed actions in the response.

Then separate attribute to carry constraints for the request, like
--live.

I'd think the supported actions in devlink_ops would be fine as a
bitfield, too. Combinations are often hard to capture in static data.