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: <20190213032816.GE7527@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 04:28:16 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com
Cc:     sergio.paracuellos@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, pavel@....cz,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 2/4] net: dsa: microchip: add MIB counter
 reading support

> All of the MIB counters, except some that may be marked by driver,
> do not get updated when the link is down, so it is a waste of time
> to read them.

Hi Tristram

O.K, so make this clear in the code. Maybe rather than having this
link_just_down, have the adjust link callback update the cached
values for all counters? 

> My intention is the driver eventually reads the MIB counters at
> least every second or faster so that the ethtool API called to show
> MIB counters gets them from memory rather than starting a read
> operation.

The user expects to see the current counters, not some cached values.
For me it is O.K. to frequently read the counters to prevent wrap
around, but each ethtool call should update the counters before
returning them to user space.

> For simple switches that do not need to do anything special the MIB
> read operation does not cause any issue except CPU load, for more
> complicate switches that need to do some background operations too
> many read operation can affect some critical functions.

Sounds like a bad design of the switch, if reading statistics from it
can upset its operation. You might want to consider rate limiting the
ethtool call.

	Andrew

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ