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  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:   Wed, 8 Apr 2020 19:42:56 -0300
From:   "marcelo.leitner@...il.com" <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.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, Apr 08, 2020 at 10:38:52PM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> 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 .. 

Roger that, thanks Saeed.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists