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: <20180514204725.GT4977@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 17:47:25 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...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 Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:30:53PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> 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?

Because (as discussed in the RFC[1], should have linked it here) it
could confuse users that are not aware of offloading and, in other
cases, it can be just noise (like it would be right now for ebpf,
which is mostly used in sw-path).

1.https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg223016.html