netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 13/22] ethtool: provide driver/device information in GET

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: <20190328163439.GP14297@nanopsycho>
Date:   Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:34:39 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 13/22] ethtool: provide driver/device
 information in GET_INFO request

Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:53:47AM CET, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:21:26AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:25:54PM CET, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote:
>> >
>> >I'm all for implementing new features which are are related to physical
>> >device (ASIC) rather than network interface only in devlink (at the
>> >level of kernel-userspace interface). But for features already provided
>> >by ethtool (userspace utility) I can't help seeing the state of devlink
>> >support in NIC drivers as a serious blocker.
>> 
>> What I'm thinking about at for some time now would be en explicit
>> default devlink and devlink_port registration for every netdev for
>> drivers that does not support devlink themselves. I need to think about
>> it more, but it seems doable. Then we can hang appropriate things there
>> and make the ethtoolnl/devlink separation clear. I believe we need to do
>> it.
>
>That sounds great, such "generic devlink" implementation would be a way
>around. Kernel could then emulate features which are not implemented by
>an actual devlink handler (i.e. "generic devlink" is used or particular
>handler is missing) by falling back to ethtool_ops handler so that
>userspace could rely on devlink API for things like device information,
>various dumps, flashing etc. without losing anything.

Yep. Plan to do that next week.

>
>Michal