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: <20200903055729.GB2997@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 07:57:29 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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

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?
Thanks!