netdev - RE: [PATCH 2/7] devlink: Adding NPAR permanent config parameters

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: <AM0PR0502MB368369A37B7A635C31667207BF420@AM0PR0502MB3683.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2017 18:08:19 +0000
From:   Yuval Mintz <yuvalm@...lanox.com>
To:     Steve Lin <steven.lin1@...adcom.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "michael.chan@...adcom.com" <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        "linville@...driver.com" <linville@...driver.com>,
        "gospo@...adcom.com" <gospo@...adcom.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/7] devlink: Adding NPAR permanent config parameters

> >> DEVLINK_ATTR_PERM_CFG_NPAR_BW_RESERVATION_VALID: 1 to use
> >> BW_RESERVATION setting, 0 to ignore.
> >>
> > ...
> >> DEVLINK_ATTR_PERM_CFG_NPAR_BW_LIMIT_VALID: 1 to use BW_LIMIT
> >> setting, 0 to ignore.
> >
> > While it probably ties to different fields in your NVM layout why would the
> user
> > require specific attributes for these? Why not have values in the actual
> > attributes indicating of this status?
> 
> Hi Yuval,
> 
> Does having the separate valid flag present any difficulties?  There
> are lots of implementation options here (a limit or reservation value
> of 0 could mean invalid, or we could define (1 << 31) to be a valid
> flag when setting the value, etc.), and I'm not necessarily tied to
> doing it this way, but it seemed a straightforward way to represent
> the validity of the other field.

You're pushing a LOT of new attributes, every one of which is going
to have to be documented for future generations.
I think whenever it's possible to drop an unnecessary attribute, that
would be the better option.