linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 03/16] devlink: Add devlink reload limit option

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:   Sat, 3 Oct 2020 08:04:36 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/16] devlink: Add devlink reload limit option

On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 09:51:00 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > enum devlink_attr {
> > 	/* don't change the order or add anything between, this is ABI! */
> > 	DEVLINK_ATTR_UNSPEC,
> >@@ -507,6 +524,7 @@ enum devlink_attr {
> > 
> > 	DEVLINK_ATTR_RELOAD_ACTION,		/* u8 */
> > 	DEVLINK_ATTR_RELOAD_ACTIONS_PERFORMED,	/* u64 */
> >+	DEVLINK_ATTR_RELOAD_LIMIT,	/* u8 */  
> 
> Hmm, why there could be specified only single "limit"? I believe this
> should be a bitfield. Same for the internal api to the driver.

Hm I was expecting limits to be ordered (in maths sense) but you're
right perhaps that can't be always guaranteed.

Also - Moshe please double check that there will not be any kdoc
warnings here - I just learned that W=1 builds don't check headers 
but I'll fix up my bot by the time you post v2.