netdev - Re: [patch net-next v6_repost 2/3] net: core: add SW stats to if_stats

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: <20160823.000415.624700756560666111.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jiri@...nulli.us
Cc:     roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        nogahf@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com, eladr@...lanox.com,
        yotamg@...lanox.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
        nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, linville@...driver.com, tgraf@...g.ch,
        gospo@...ulusnetworks.com, sfeldma@...il.com, sd@...asysnail.net,
        eranbe@...lanox.com, ast@...mgrid.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        hannes@...essinduktion.org, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        dsa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v6_repost 2/3] net: core: add SW stats to
 if_stats_msg

From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 08:53:18 +0200

> Anyway I think that next level of nesting is not necessary. On
> contrary, it is wrong. The current level is extensible, mixed and
> flagged already. I don't see any reason why not to add whatever kind of
> stats here. What makes IFLA_STATS_LINK_SW_64 or for example
> IFLA_STATS_LINK_HW_ACL so special it has to be nested in some other
> attr? I would understand it it would be values of one family, but that
> is not the case.

First, I agree with Roopa.  If we want to put this stuff out
there is should be bucketed together in a nested attribute with
other similar stats specifications.

Second, the more I think about this what you're providing isn't
actually a new statistic type.

It's a filter.

So why don't we just provide a filter specification that gets passed
down into the driver.  And the user can ask for "SW stats" or whatever
using that.