netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 10/11] s390/qeth: allow reset via ethtool

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:   Wed, 6 May 2020 12:09:09 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Julian Wiedmann <jwi@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 10/11] s390/qeth: allow reset via ethtool

On Wed, 6 May 2020 09:56:41 +0200 Julian Wiedmann wrote:
> On 05.05.20 23:28, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 May 2020 21:57:43 +0200 Julian Wiedmann wrote:  
> >>> This is the comment from the uAPI header:
> >>>
> >>> /* The reset() operation must clear the flags for the components which
> >>>  * were actually reset.  On successful return, the flags indicate the
> >>>  * components which were not reset, either because they do not exist
> >>>  * in the hardware or because they cannot be reset independently.  The
> >>>  * driver must never reset any components that were not requested.
> >>>  */
> >>>
> >>> Now let's take ETH_RESET_PHY as an example. Surely you're not resetting
> >>> any PHY here, so that bit should not be cleared. Please look at the
> >>> bits and select the ones which make sense, add whatever is missing.
> >>>     
> >>
> >> It's a virtual device, _none_ of them make much sense?! We better not be
> >> resetting any actual HW components, the other interfaces on the same
> >> adapter would be quite unhappy about that.  
> > 
> > Well, then, you can't use the API in its current form. You can't say
> > none of the sub-options are applicable, but the sum of them does.
> 
> Agreed, that's my take as well. So we'll basically need a ETH_RESET_FULL bit,
> for devices that don't fit into the fine-grained component model.

I'd say you're barely re-opening all communication channels with the
device, without any loss of configuration, right? So perhaps
RESET_DRV_IFC? Not great but best I can come up with :S

> >> Sorry for being dense, and I appreciate that the API leaves a lot of room
> >> for sophisticated partial resets where the driver/HW allows it.
> >> But it sounds like what you're suggesting is
> >> (1) we select a rather arbitrary set of components that _might_ represent a
> >>     full "virtual" reset, and then
> >> (2) expect the user to guess a super-set of these features. And not worry
> >>     when they selected too much, and this obscure PHY thing failed to reset.  
> > 
> > No, please see the code I provided below, and read how the interface 
> > is supposed to work. I posted the code comment in my previous reply. 
> > I don't know what else I can do for you.
> > 
> > User can still pass "all" but you can't _clear_ all bits, 'cause you
> > didn't reset any PHY, MAC, etc.
> >   
> >> So I looked at gve's implementation and thought "yep, looks simple enough".  
> > 
> > Ugh, yeah, gve is not a good example.
> >   
> >> But if we start asking users to interpret HW bits that hardly make any
> >> sense to them, we're worse off than with the existing custom sysfs trigger...  
> > 
> > Actually - operationally, how do you expect people to use this reset?
> > Some user space system detects the NIC is in a bad state? Does the
> > interface communicate that via some log messages or such?
> > 
> > The commit message doesn't really explain the "why".
> >   
> 
> Usually the driver will detect a hung condition itself, and trigger an
> automatic reset internally (eg. from the TX watchdog).
> But if that doesn't work, you'll hopefully get enough noisy log warnings
> to investigate & reset the interface manually.
> Besides that, it's just an easy way to exercise/test the reset code.

Perhaps a better path would be using devlink health? There's currently
no way to force a recovery, but that's effectively what you're doing
here, right? We can extend the devlink API.

> Integration with a daemon / management layer definitely sounds like an
> option, and I'd much rather point those people towards ethtool instead
> of sysfs.
> 
> >>> Then my suggestion would be something like:
> >>>
> >>>   #define QETH_RESET_FLAGS (flag | flag | flag)
> >>>
> >>>   if ((*flags & QETH_RESET_FLAGS) != QETH_RESET_FLAGS))
> >>> 	return -EINVAL;
> >>>   ...
> >>>   *flags &= ~QETH_RESET_FLAGS;