netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rtnetlink: Add link-down reason to RTNL messages

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:   Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:15:41 +0000
From:   Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        "jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com" <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        "stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/3] net: rtnetlink: Add link-down reason to
 RTNL messages


Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:

>> +enum rtnl_link_down_reason_major {
>> +	RTNL_LDR_OTHER,
>
> Does 'other' make any sense? Seem better to just not report anything
> at all, or add a comment that more reasons should be added at the end
> to reflect whatever the hardware or software can determine.

You still have the minor code to give you some information.

>> +	RTNL_LDR_NO_CABLE,
>> +	RTNL_LDR_UNSUPPORTED_CABLE,
>> +	RTNL_LDR_AUTONEG_FAILURE,
>> +	RTNL_LDR_NO_LINK_PARTNER,
>> +	RTNL_LDR_LINK_TRAINING_FAILURE,
>> +	RTNL_LDR_LOGICAL_MISMATCH,
>> +	RTNL_LDR_REMOTE_FAULT,
>> +	RTNL_LDR_BAD_SIGNAL_INTEGRITY,
>> +	RTNL_LDR_CALIBRATION_FAILURE,
>> +	RTNL_LDR_POWER_BUDGET_EXCEEDED,
>> +};
>
> What about SFP cage empty?, i.e. no SFP, SFP+ module in the cage?  An

No cable? Maybe the name needs to change...

> SFP can also report LOS. That does not appear to be any of the above.
> Or that the core SFP code has been unable to read the EEPROM? We have

My assumption was that cable with unreadable EEPROM is simply a bad
cable. Does the admin actually care which particular part of the cable
is at fault?

> people reporting this problem at the moment. We also have that the
> SERDES has not yet obtained sync to its peer, which you know from
> phylink_mac_change. That probably means the peer is using a different
> bit rate.

We can add this.

> I think it would be good if you handle the general case errors which
> phylib and phylink can report, as well as the proprietary cases your
> driver can report. We don't want this to be a Mellanox only API.

Sure, I'll take a look at that. I didn't need to deal with PHY so far,
so I need to figure out what's what.