netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH iproute2-next] System specification health API

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]

Date:   Sun, 16 Sep 2018 12:29:39 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Tal Alon <talal@...lanox.com>,
        Ariel Almog <ariela@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH iproute2-next] System specification health API

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:36:04 -0700
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:18:15 +0300, Eran Ben Elisha wrote:
> > The health spec is targeted for Real Time Alerting, in order to know when
> > something bad had happened to a PCI device  
> 
> By spec you mean some standards body spec you implement or this
> proposal is a spec?
> 
> > - Provide alert debug information
> > - Self healing
> > - If problem needs vendor support, provide a way to gather all needed debugging
> >   information.
> > 
> > The health contains sensors which sense for malfunction. Once sensor triggered,
> > actions such as logs and correction can be taken.
> > Sensors are sensing the health state and can trigger correction action.
> > 
> > The sensors are divided into the following groups
> > - Hardware sensor - a sensor which is triggered by the device due to
> >   malfunction.
> > - Software sensor - a sensor which is triggered by the software due to
> >   malfunction.
> > Both group of sensors can be triggered due to error event or due to a periodic check.
> > 
> > Actions are the way to handle sensor events. Action can be in one of the
> > following groups:
> > - Dump -  SW trace, SW dump, HW trace, HW dump
> > - Reset - Surgical correction (e.g. modify Q, flush Q, reset of device, etc)
> > Actions can be performed by SW or HW.
> > 
> > User is allowed to enable or disable sensors and sensor2action mapping.
> > 
> > This RFC man page patch describes the suggested API of devlink-health in order
> > to control sensors and actions.  
> 
> I like the idea of configuring response to events like this, although
> I'm not sure the name sensor is appropriate here - perhaps exception or
> error would be better?  Are there going to be values reported?
> 
> I'm not so sure about HW sensors in relation to existing HWMON
> infrastructure...  I assume you're targeting things like say some HW
> engine/block reporting it encountered an error?  Sounds good, too.
> 
> Are the actions all envisioned to be performed by the driver?
> Firmware?  Hardware?  I guess that distinction can be added later.
> For FW/HW actions we would go back to the problem of persistence of 
> the setting since it was only implemented for params :S
> 
> Is the dump option going to tie back into region snapshots?

Why is this going under iproute rather than using one of the existing sensor API's.
For example Intel NIC's have thermal sensors etc.