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: <20171031010418.78fd4db1@laptop>
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 01:04:18 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
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

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:17:30 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:12:13PM CET, kubakici@...pl wrote:
> >On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:03:01 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:  
> >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.

OK, whether the setting is permanent or not - is device specific.

I'm basically asking to remove the "PERM" from the names and indicate
which config set (of the 3 enumerated above) user wants it applied in a
separate attribute.