netdev - Re: [NET-NEXT PATCH 08/14] e1000e: link up/down messages must follow a specific format

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: <9929d2390811211319v1905b74ey329c4cd1001ac7ce@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:19:07 -0800
From:	"Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To:	"Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	"Dan Williams" <dcbw@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
	"Bruce Allan" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [NET-NEXT PATCH 08/14] e1000e: link up/down messages must follow a specific format

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<shemminger@...tta.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:23:42 -0800
> "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 11:01 -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>> >> From: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>
>> >>
>> >> The system log messages created on a link status change need to follow a
>> >> specific format to work with tools some customers use.
>> >
>> > Um, shouldn't those tools be listening to netlink for carrier events, or
>> > are these tools run on a separate machine using on some later date using
>> > the logs from the machine with the e1000e?
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>>
>> From my understanding these tools are looking at the logs and that is
>> why we need to have a consistent log message.
>>
>
> These tools are tied to a specific driver (yours), because not all drivers
> generate a message or the same format message. This may be okay for Intel
> but is really stupid design...

I have not checked all of the drivers, but I do see that our driver
does follow what others driver (e.g. tg3, starfire) are doing.  I
would be open for standardizing on what messages get generated and in
what format.

I am sure that would help third parties generate tools that would work
with every driver.


> It would be good if link state transitions generated uevents (online/offline).
> Then udev, hal and others could use that without netlink.
> --

Again, I would be open to any standardization so that all drivers
would deal with link up/down messages in the same manner.

-- 
Cheers,
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html