netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/10] devlink: Add permanent config parameter get/set operations

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: <20171031071730.GB1972@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:17:30 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
Cc:     Steve Lin <steven.lin1@...adcom.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        jiri@...lanox.com, davem@...emloft.net, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
        linville@...driver.com, gospo@...adcom.com, yuvalm@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/10] devlink: Add permanent config
 parameter get/set operations

Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:12:13PM CET, kubakici@...pl wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:03:01 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >+	cfgparam_attr = nla_nest_start(msg, DEVLINK_ATTR_PERM_CONFIG);
>> >+	/* Update restart reqd - if any param needs restart, should be set */
>> >+	if (need_restart) {  
>> 
>> You should propagate this out so the caller would fill it to the
>> message. This is a global thing, not per-param, shoult not be nested.
>
>Right, I think Jiri has already asked for this but I feel like we
>should provide the ability to query running/pending configurations
>independently.  I don't see it in this patch set?

I don't see it either :/


>
>I'm not sure what the status of the reconfig trigger patches for mlxsw
>is, but we actually may need 3 config sets:
> - current/runtime configurable, 
> - requiring soft reset of the device/driver reinit;
> - requiring hard reset/set on boot.
>
>Secondly, IMHO calling set/get parameters "permanent" is a bit
>backwards.  One device may not be able to change max VF counts or MSIX
>allocation without full reinit of PCIe blocks, but for others soft
>reset is more than enough.  Port splitting is another example.  For 
>NICs port splitting at runtime is usually not a priority in HW/FW
>development, so some form of reset is generally required, while
>switches can split a port at runtime.  IOW we should define parameters
>without assigning them to config sets in the ABI itself.  And also we
>should make it in a way which will allow existing parameters to be
>reused in permanent/sort reset required/runtime modes.
>
>Does that make sense?

"IOW we should define parameters without assigning them to config sets
in the ABI itself" - I don't understand what do you mean by this.