netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next] devlink: let kernel allocate region snapshot id

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: <02874ECE860811409154E81DA85FBB58B6CF81A0@FMSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 21:30:43 +0000
From:   "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-team@...com" <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] devlink: let kernel allocate region snapshot id



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 9:39 AM
> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>; davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> kernel-team@...com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] devlink: let kernel allocate region snapshot id
> 
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:34:30 +0000 Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> > > How the output is going to looks like it this or any of the follow-up
> > > calls in this function are going to fail?
> > >
> > > I guess it is going to be handled gracefully in the userspace app,
> > > right?
> >
> > I'm wondering what the issue is with just waiting to send the
> > snapshot id back until after this succeeds. Is it just easier to keep
> > it near the allocation?
> 
> I just wasn't happy with the fact that the response send may fail.
> So it just seems like better protocol from the start to expect user
> space to pay attention to the error code at the end, before it takes
> action on the response.

Ok that seems reasonable to me.

Can we get documentation updates for this?

Thanks,
Jake