netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net/mlx5e: limit log messages due to (ovs) probing to

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: <54e70f800bc8f3b4d2dc7ddea02c1baa0036ea54.camel@mellanox.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Apr 2020 22:38:52 +0000
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
To:     "marcelo.leitner@...il.com" <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
CC:     Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>,
        Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...lanox.com>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/mlx5e: limit log messages due to (ovs) probing to
 _once

On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 18:54 -0300, marcelo.leitner@...il.com wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 07:51:22PM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> ...
> > > > I understand it is for debug only but i strongly suggest to not
> > > > totally
> > > > suppress these messages and maybe just move them to tracepoints
> > > > buffer
> > > > ? for those who would want to really debug .. 
> > > > 
> > > > we already have some tracepoints implemented for en_tc.c 
> > > > mlx5/core/diag/en_tc_tracepoints.c, maybe we should define a
> > > > tracepoint
> > > > for error reporting .. 
> > > 
> > > That, or s/netdev_warn/netdev_dbg/, but both are more hidden to
> > > the
> > > user than the _once.
> > > 
> > 
> > i don't see any reason to pollute kernel log with debug messages
> > when
> > we have tracepoint buffer for en_tc .. 
> 
> So we're agreeing that these need to be changed. Good.

I would like to wait for the feedback from the CC'ed mlnx TC
developers..

I just pinged them, lets see what they think.

but i totally agree, TC can support 100k offloads requests per seconds,
dumping every possible issue to the kernel log shouldn't be an option,this is not a boot or a fatal error/warning .. 

> 
> I don't think a sysadmin would be using tracepoints for
> troubleshooting this, but okay. My only objective here is exactly
> what
> you said, to not pollute kernel log too much with these potentially
> repetitive messages.

these types of errors are easily reproduce-able, a sysadmin can see and
report the errno and the extack message, and in case it is really
required, the support or development team can ask to turn on trace-
points or debug and reproduce ..