netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Keep ATU/VTU violation statistics

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: <20180328193304.GB20749@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 21:33:04 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Keep ATU/VTU violation
 statistics

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:17:19AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 03/27/2018 02:59 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Count the numbers of various ATU and VTU violation statistics and
> > return them as part of the ethtool -S statistics.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c        | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.h        | 13 ++++++---
> >  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_atu.c | 12 +++++---
> >  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/global1_vtu.c |  8 ++++--
> >  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/serdes.c      | 15 ++++++----
> >  drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/serdes.h      |  8 +++---
> >  6 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> > index 9a5d786b4885..186021f98c5d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> > @@ -723,6 +723,24 @@ static int mv88e6320_stats_get_strings(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip,
> >  					   STATS_TYPE_BANK0 | STATS_TYPE_BANK1);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static const uint8_t *mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings[] = {
> 
> Why not const char *?

The ethtool call passes i uint8_t *data to receive the copy into. I'm
keeping it consistent.

> > +static void mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_get_strings(uint8_t *data)
> > +{
> > +	int i;
> 
> unsigned int i?

I could do, but it seems unlikely it will overflow 31 bits.

> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings); i++)
> > +		strlcpy(data + i * ETH_GSTRING_LEN,
> > +			mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings[i],
> > +			ETH_GSTRING_LEN);
> > +}
> > +
> >  static void mv88e6xxx_get_strings(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> >  				  uint8_t *data)
> >  {
> > @@ -736,9 +754,12 @@ static void mv88e6xxx_get_strings(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> >  
> >  	if (chip->info->ops->serdes_get_strings) {
> >  		data += count * ETH_GSTRING_LEN;
> > -		chip->info->ops->serdes_get_strings(chip, port, data);
> > +		count = chip->info->ops->serdes_get_strings(chip, port, data);
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	data += count * ETH_GSTRING_LEN;
> > +	mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_get_strings(data);
> > +
> >  	mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock);
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -783,10 +804,13 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_get_sset_count(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port)
> >  	if (chip->info->ops->serdes_get_sset_count)
> >  		serdes_count = chip->info->ops->serdes_get_sset_count(chip,
> >  								      port);
> > -	if (serdes_count < 0)
> > +	if (serdes_count < 0) {
> >  		count = serdes_count;
> > -	else
> > -		count += serdes_count;
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +	count += serdes_count;
> > +	count += ARRAY_SIZE(mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_stats_strings);
> > +
> >  out:
> >  	mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock);
> >  
> > @@ -841,6 +865,16 @@ static int mv88e6390_stats_get_stats(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> >  					 0);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void mv88e6xxx_atu_vtu_get_stats(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> > +					uint64_t *data)
> > +{
> > +	*data++ = chip->ports[port].atu_member_violation;
> > +	*data++ = chip->ports[port].atu_miss_violation;
> > +	*data++ = chip->ports[port].atu_full_violation;
> > +	*data++ = chip->ports[port].vtu_member_violation;
> > +	*data++ = chip->ports[port].vtu_miss_violation;
> 
> This looks fine, but I suppose you could just have an u64 pointer which
> is initialized to point to atu_member_violation, and then just do
> pointer arithmetics to iterate, this would avoid possibly missing that
> function in case new ATU/VTU violations are handled in the future?

KISS. This works and is obvious.

      Andrew