netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/4] net: Introduce protodown flag.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:29:55 -0700
From:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
To:	Anuradha Karuppiah <anuradhak@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Wilson Kok <wkok@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/4] net: Introduce protodown flag.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Anuradha Karuppiah
<anuradhak@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:43 PM,  <anuradhak@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>>> From: Anuradha Karuppiah <anuradhak@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>>
>>> User space daemons can detect errors in the network that need to be
>>> notified to the switch device drivers.
>>>
>>> Drivers can react to this error state by doing a phy-down on the
>>> switch-port which would result in a carrier-off locally and on the directly
>>> connected switch. Doing that would prevent loops and black-holes in the
>>> network.
>>
>> Hi Anuradha,
>>
>> Since this is a switch-thingy, can you move this to switchdev port
>> attribute rather than adding another ndo op?  I know you started this
>> patch set before switchdev port attrs, but I think it's worthwhile
>> moving it to switchdev since clearly the use-case is switch device
>> drivers.   Let me know if you need help converting over to switchdev
>> port attr.
>>
>> Also, is the sysfs interface necessary?  The netlink/iproute2
>> interface seems sufficient.
>>
>> -scott
>
> Yes, for the current use case (MLAG) it would be better to isolate the
> changes to switchdev. Also if we go with the switchdev option are you
> thinking about dropping the netdev->proto_down bool attribute
> altogether and only keeping that info in the switch drivers that
> support the op?

Yes.

> You are right, the sysfs is not necessary. I can make it RO and just
> use it for displaying or drop it all together. What would you
> recommend?

Drop it if it's not needed/used.

On the iproute2 part, do we expect users to manually toggle this flag
from the cmdline?  Seems kind of weird to walk up to a box and say "ip
link set dev DEV protodown on".  Isn't this more intended for external
agents (i.e. MLAG) to toggle?  I guess if there is a netlink attr for
the flag, there should be a user-interface.  But it seems like it'll
be a source of confusion for 99.999% of the users out there that
wonder what this knob does.
--
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