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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <82a76591-5f70-59fb-2bb5-81895b6c2e7c@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:53:03 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        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

On 3/28/19 1:09 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:34:39 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> The problem with the main part of dev info - fw_version - is that it is
> often overloaded in drivers and becomes impossible to parse for users.
> I'd rather we didn't dump that nasty chaos in devlink info and let it
> die with ethtool IOCTL.
> 
> Flashing can also be handled at user space tool level.
> 

Yes, I really like how sfc does it which is to expose MTD devices and
certainly have a custom flashing tool, that should be the way to go IMHO.
-- 
Florian