netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] sched: cls: enable verbose logging

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: <CAM_iQpXhmp3Hfj0c0Ryiw=md+ZVb6+it1=fL5ZKhY1m8aq44Qg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 13:30:53 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Alexander Aring <aring@...atatu.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sched: cls: enable verbose logging

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> Currently, when the rule is not to be exclusively executed by the
> hardware, extack is not passed along and offloading failures don't
> get logged. The idea was that hardware failures are okay because the
> rule will get executed in software then and this way it doesn't confuse
> unware users.
>
> But this is not helpful in case one needs to understand why a certain
> rule failed to get offloaded. Considering it may have been a temporary
> failure, like resources exceeded or so, reproducing it later and knowing
> that it is triggering the same reason may be challenging.

I fail to understand why you need a flag here, IOW, why not just pass
extack unconditionally?