netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] devlink: Add auto dump flag to health reporter

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]

Date:   Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:23:16 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] devlink: Add auto dump flag to health
 reporter

Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 06:39:13PM CET, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 11:22:44 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> >>> @@ -4983,6 +4985,10 @@ devlink_nl_health_reporter_fill(struct sk_buff *msg,
>> >> >>>   	    nla_put_u64_64bit(msg, DEVLINK_ATTR_HEALTH_REPORTER_DUMP_TS_NS,
>> >> >>>   			      reporter->dump_real_ts, DEVLINK_ATTR_PAD))
>> >> >>>   		goto reporter_nest_cancel;
>> >> >>> +	if (reporter->ops->dump &&
>> >> >>> +	    nla_put_u8(msg, DEVLINK_ATTR_HEALTH_REPORTER_AUTO_DUMP,
>> >> >>> +		       reporter->auto_dump))
>> >> >>> +		goto reporter_nest_cancel;    
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Since you're making it a u8 - does it make sense to indicate to user    
>> >> > 
>> >> > Please don't be mistaken. u8 carries a bool here.  
>> >
>> >Are you okay with limiting the value in the policy?  
>> 
>> Well, not-0 means true. Do you think it is wise to limit to 0/1?
>
>Just future proofing, in general seems wise to always constrain the
>input as much as possible. But in this case we already have similar
>attrs in the dump which don't have the constraint, and we will probably
>want consistency, so maybe we're unlikely to use other values.

Agreed.

>
>In particular I was wondering if auto-dump value can be extended to
>mean the number of dumps we want to collect, the current behavior I
>think matches collecting just one. But obviously this can be solved
>with a new attr when needed..