linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v1 2/4] devlink: Add devlink traps under devlink

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]

Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 16:04:09 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     Aya Levin <ayal@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v1 2/4] devlink: Add devlink traps under
 devlink_ports context

Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 05:44:28PM CEST, idosch@...sch.org wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 06:32:12PM +0300, Aya Levin wrote:

[...]

>
>I understand how this struct allows you to re-use a lot of code between
>per-device and per-port traps, but it's mainly enabled by the fact that
>you use the same netlink commands for both per-device and per-port
>traps. Is this OK?
>
>I see this is already done for health reporters, but it's inconsistent
>with the devlink-param API:
>
>DEVLINK_CMD_PARAM_GET
>DEVLINK_CMD_PARAM_SET
>DEVLINK_CMD_PARAM_NEW
>DEVLINK_CMD_PARAM_DEL
>
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_PARAM_GET
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_PARAM_SET
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_PARAM_NEW
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_PARAM_DEL
>
>And also with the general device/port commands:
>
>DEVLINK_CMD_GET
>DEVLINK_CMD_SET
>DEVLINK_CMD_NEW
>DEVLINK_CMD_DEL
>
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_GET
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_SET
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_NEW
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_DEL
>
>Wouldn't it be cleaner to add new commands?
>
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_TRAP_GET
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_TRAP_SET
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_TRAP_NEW
>DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_TRAP_DEL
>
>I think the health API is the exception in this case and therefore might
>not be the best thing to mimic. IIUC, existing per-port health reporters
>were exposed as per-device and later moved to be exposed as per-port
>[1]:
>
>"This patchset comes to fix a design issue as some health reporters
>report on errors and run recovery on device level while the actual
>functionality is on port level. As for the current implemented devlink
>health reporters it is relevant only to Tx and Rx reporters of mlx5,
>which has only one port, so no real effect on functionality, but this
>should be fixed before more drivers will use devlink health reporters."

Yeah, this slipped trough my fingers unfortunatelly :/ But with
introduction of per-port health reporters, we could introduce new
commands, that would be no problem. Pity :/


>
>[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ac4cd4781eacd1fd185c85522e869bd5d3254b96
>
>Since we still don't have per-port traps, we can design it better from
>the start.

I agree. Let's have a separate commands for per-port.


[...]