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: <20160823145159.GC1975@nanopsycho>
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:52:00 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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

Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 04:46:37PM CEST, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
>On 8/23/16, 12:26 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 09:04:15AM CEST, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Well I still don't think that IFLA_STATS_LINK_SW_64 and
>> IFLA_STATS_LINK_HW_ACL are related. You cannot put it under *DRIVER*
>> nest as IFLA_STATS_LINK_SW_64 are core stats.
>not sure i understand, why is this core stats ?.
>should a new logical device implement  IFLA_STATS_LINK_64 or IFLA_STATS_LINK_SW_64 ?
>any other users ?.
>
>
>>  So we can put them under
>> *MISC* nest attr. But that is exactly purpose of the top-level here.
>> /me confused
>
>By design top level is for higher level grouping of stats (that also helps us maintain a lean higher
>level filter space). They are mainly categories of stats. for example we have a nested link
>XSTATS attribute..which are again a break down of stats already counted in IFLA_STATS_LINK_64.
>That's why I think we can group this into another kind of breakdown stats.

I give up. What name do you suggest for the nested attribute?

Thanks.