| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190124090917.GB2357@nanopsycho>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:09:17 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/7] devlink: move devlink health reporter to
use devlink msg API
Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 08:45:05AM CET, eranbe@...lanox.com wrote:
>
>
>On 1/23/2019 4:42 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 04:57:20PM CET, eranbe@...lanox.com wrote:
>>> Move devlink reporter diagnose and dump operations to use the new msg API.
>>> Redefine the signature of diagnose and dump operations and move the mlx5e
>>> reporter to use it with the new format.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../mellanox/mlx5/core/en/reporter_tx.c | 1 +
>>> include/net/devlink.h | 9 +-
>>> net/core/devlink.c | 95 +++++--------------
>>> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/reporter_tx.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/reporter_tx.c
>>> index fc92850c214a..7238cda670ba 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/reporter_tx.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/reporter_tx.c
>>> @@ -264,6 +264,7 @@ static int mlx5e_tx_reporter_diagnose(struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter,
>>> static const struct devlink_health_reporter_ops mlx5_tx_reporter_ops = {
>>> .name = "TX",
>>> .recover = mlx5e_tx_reporter_recover,
>>> + .diagnose = mlx5e_tx_reporter_diagnose,
>>
>> Unrelated to this patch.
>
>ack.
>
>>
>>
>>> };
>>>
>>> #define MLX5_REPORTER_TX_GRACEFUL_PERIOD 500
>>> diff --git a/include/net/devlink.h b/include/net/devlink.h
>>> index fe323e9b14e1..d66de8b80cc2 100644
>>> --- a/include/net/devlink.h
>>> +++ b/include/net/devlink.h
>>> @@ -442,17 +442,12 @@ struct devlink_health_reporter;
>>>
>>> struct devlink_health_reporter_ops {
>>> char *name;
>>> - unsigned int dump_size;
>>> - unsigned int diagnose_size;
>>> int (*recover)(struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter,
>>> void *priv_ctx);
>>> int (*dump)(struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter,
>>> - struct devlink_health_buffer **buffers_array,
>>> - unsigned int buffer_size, unsigned int num_buffers,
>>> - void *priv_ctx);
>>> + struct devlink_msg_ctx *msg_ctx, void *priv_ctx);
>>> int (*diagnose)(struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter,
>>> - struct devlink_health_buffer **buffers_array,
>>> - unsigned int buffer_size, unsigned int num_buffers);
>>> + struct devlink_msg_ctx *msg_ctx);
>>> };
>>>
>>> struct devlink_ops {
>>> diff --git a/net/core/devlink.c b/net/core/devlink.c
>>> index 57ca096849b3..347b638e6f32 100644
>>> --- a/net/core/devlink.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/devlink.c
>>> @@ -4555,10 +4555,8 @@ static int devlink_msg_snd(struct genl_info *info,
>>>
>>> struct devlink_health_reporter {
>>> struct list_head list;
>>> - struct devlink_health_buffer **dump_buffers_array;
>>> + struct devlink_msg_ctx *dump_msg_ctx;
>>> struct mutex dump_lock; /* lock parallel read/write from dump buffers */
>>> - struct devlink_health_buffer **diagnose_buffers_array;
>>> - struct mutex diagnose_lock; /* lock parallel read/write from diagnose buffers */
>>
>> Howcome you don't need the mutex anymore?
>
>Now, as data is allocated on the fly while diagnose_doit(), no need to
>store the diagnose over the reporter anymore. So no need for any mutex
>locking in order to prepare and send it.
Why the data is allocated on the fly? Shouldn't it be a separate patch
as it looks like a separate change?
>
>>
>>
>>> void *priv;
>>> const struct devlink_health_reporter_ops *ops;
>>> struct devlink *devlink;
>>> @@ -4619,9 +4617,7 @@ devlink_health_reporter_create(struct devlink *devlink,
>>> goto unlock;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (WARN_ON(ops->dump && !ops->dump_size) ||
>>> - WARN_ON(ops->diagnose && !ops->diagnose_size) ||
>>> - WARN_ON(auto_recover && !ops->recover) ||
>>> + if (WARN_ON(auto_recover && !ops->recover) ||
>>> WARN_ON(graceful_period && !ops->recover)) {
>>> reporter = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>> goto unlock;
>>> @@ -4633,31 +4629,8 @@ devlink_health_reporter_create(struct devlink *devlink,
>>> goto unlock;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (ops->dump) {
>>> - reporter->dump_buffers_array =
>>> - devlink_health_buffers_create(ops->dump_size);
>>> - if (!reporter->dump_buffers_array) {
>>> - kfree(reporter);
>>> - reporter = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>> - goto unlock;
>>> - }
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> - if (ops->diagnose) {
>>> - reporter->diagnose_buffers_array =
>>> - devlink_health_buffers_create(ops->diagnose_size);
>>> - if (!reporter->diagnose_buffers_array) {
>>> - devlink_health_buffers_destroy(reporter->dump_buffers_array,
>>> - DEVLINK_HEALTH_SIZE_TO_BUFFERS(ops->dump_size));
>>> - kfree(reporter);
>>> - reporter = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>> - goto unlock;
>>> - }
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> list_add_tail(&reporter->list, &devlink->reporter_list);
>>> mutex_init(&reporter->dump_lock);
>>> - mutex_init(&reporter->diagnose_lock);
>>>
>>> reporter->priv = priv;
>>> reporter->ops = ops;
>>> @@ -4680,10 +4653,8 @@ devlink_health_reporter_destroy(struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter)
>>> {
>>> mutex_lock(&reporter->devlink->lock);
>>> list_del(&reporter->list);
>>> - devlink_health_buffers_destroy(reporter->dump_buffers_array,
>>> - DEVLINK_HEALTH_SIZE_TO_BUFFERS(reporter->ops->dump_size));
>>> - devlink_health_buffers_destroy(reporter->diagnose_buffers_array,
>>> - DEVLINK_HEALTH_SIZE_TO_BUFFERS(reporter->ops->diagnose_size));
>>> + if (reporter->dump_msg_ctx)
>>> + devlink_msg_ctx_free(reporter->dump_msg_ctx);
>>> kfree(reporter);
>>> mutex_unlock(&reporter->devlink->lock);
>>> }
>>> @@ -4720,12 +4691,15 @@ static int devlink_health_do_dump(struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter,
>>> if (reporter->dump_avail)
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> - devlink_health_buffers_reset(reporter->dump_buffers_array,
>>> - DEVLINK_HEALTH_SIZE_TO_BUFFERS(reporter->ops->dump_size));
>>> - err = reporter->ops->dump(reporter, reporter->dump_buffers_array,
>>> - DEVLINK_HEALTH_BUFFER_SIZE,
>>> - DEVLINK_HEALTH_SIZE_TO_BUFFERS(reporter->ops->dump_size),
>>> - priv_ctx);
>>> + reporter->dump_msg_ctx = devlink_msg_ctx_alloc();
>>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(reporter->dump_msg_ctx)) {
>>> + err = PTR_ERR(reporter->dump_msg_ctx);
>>> + reporter->dump_msg_ctx = NULL;
>>> + return err;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + err = reporter->ops->dump(reporter, reporter->dump_msg_ctx,
>>> + priv_ctx);
>>> if (!err) {
>>> reporter->dump_avail = true;
>>> reporter->dump_ts = jiffies;
>>> @@ -4960,7 +4934,7 @@ static int devlink_nl_cmd_health_reporter_diagnose_doit(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>> {
>>> struct devlink *devlink = info->user_ptr[0];
>>> struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter;
>>> - u64 num_of_buffers;
>>> + struct devlink_msg_ctx *msg_ctx;
>>> int err;
>>>
>>> reporter = devlink_health_reporter_get_from_info(devlink, info);
>>> @@ -4970,32 +4944,19 @@ static int devlink_nl_cmd_health_reporter_diagnose_doit(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>> if (!reporter->ops->diagnose)
>>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>
>>> - num_of_buffers =
>>> - DEVLINK_HEALTH_SIZE_TO_BUFFERS(reporter->ops->diagnose_size);
>>> + msg_ctx = devlink_msg_ctx_alloc();
>>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(msg_ctx))
>>> + return PTR_ERR(msg_ctx);
>>>
>>> - mutex_lock(&reporter->diagnose_lock);
>>> - devlink_health_buffers_reset(reporter->diagnose_buffers_array,
>>> - num_of_buffers);
>>> -
>>> - err = reporter->ops->diagnose(reporter,
>>> - reporter->diagnose_buffers_array,
>>> - DEVLINK_HEALTH_BUFFER_SIZE,
>>> - num_of_buffers);
>>> + err = reporter->ops->diagnose(reporter, msg_ctx);
>>
>> So this is not needed to be in reporter now? Why it was needed before?
>
>see reply above.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> if (err)
>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> - err = devlink_health_buffer_snd(info,
>>> - DEVLINK_CMD_HEALTH_REPORTER_DIAGNOSE,
>>> - 0, reporter->diagnose_buffers_array,
>>> - num_of_buffers);
>>> - if (err)
>>> - goto out;
>>> -
>>> - mutex_unlock(&reporter->diagnose_lock);
>>> - return 0;
>>> + err = devlink_msg_snd(info, DEVLINK_CMD_HEALTH_REPORTER_DIAGNOSE,
>>> + 0, msg_ctx);
>>>
>>> out:
>>> - mutex_unlock(&reporter->diagnose_lock);
>>> + devlink_msg_ctx_free(msg_ctx);
>>> return err;
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -5004,8 +4965,8 @@ devlink_health_dump_clear(struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter)
>>> {
>>> reporter->dump_avail = false;
>>> reporter->dump_ts = 0;
>>> - devlink_health_buffers_reset(reporter->dump_buffers_array,
>>> - DEVLINK_HEALTH_SIZE_TO_BUFFERS(reporter->ops->dump_size));
>>> + devlink_msg_ctx_free(reporter->dump_msg_ctx);
>>> + reporter->dump_msg_ctx = NULL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static int devlink_nl_cmd_health_reporter_dump_get_doit(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>> @@ -5013,7 +4974,6 @@ static int devlink_nl_cmd_health_reporter_dump_get_doit(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>> {
>>> struct devlink *devlink = info->user_ptr[0];
>>> struct devlink_health_reporter *reporter;
>>> - u64 num_of_buffers;
>>> int err;
>>>
>>> reporter = devlink_health_reporter_get_from_info(devlink, info);
>>> @@ -5023,18 +4983,13 @@ static int devlink_nl_cmd_health_reporter_dump_get_doit(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>> if (!reporter->ops->dump)
>>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>
>>> - num_of_buffers =
>>> - DEVLINK_HEALTH_SIZE_TO_BUFFERS(reporter->ops->dump_size);
>>> -
>>> mutex_lock(&reporter->dump_lock);
>>> err = devlink_health_do_dump(reporter, NULL);
>>> if (err)
>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> - err = devlink_health_buffer_snd(info,
>>> - DEVLINK_CMD_HEALTH_REPORTER_DUMP_GET,
>>> - 0, reporter->dump_buffers_array,
>>> - num_of_buffers);
>>> + err = devlink_msg_snd(info, DEVLINK_CMD_HEALTH_REPORTER_DUMP_GET,
>>> + 0, reporter->dump_msg_ctx);
>>>
>>> out:
>>> mutex_unlock(&reporter->dump_lock);
>>> --
>>> 2.17.1
>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists