netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] ath10k: use new module_firmware

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]

Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 13:46:43 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Steve deRosier <derosier@...il.com>,
        Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>, jeyu@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, aquini@...hat.com, cai@....pw, dyoung@...hat.com,
        bhe@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        gpiccoli@...onical.com, pmladek@...e.com,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, schlad@...e.de,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        daniel.vetter@...ll.ch, will@...nel.org,
        mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        ath10k@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] ath10k: use new module_firmware_crashed()

On Mon, 18 May 2020 22:41:48 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 13:35 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > It's intended to be a generic netlink channel for configuring devices.
> > 
> > All the firmware-related interfaces have no dependencies on netdevs,
> > in fact that's one of the reasons we moved to devlink - we don't want
> > to hold rtnl lock just for talking to device firmware.  
> 
> Sounds good :)
> 
> So I guess Luis just has to add some way in devlink to hook up devlink
> health in a simple way to drivers, perhaps? I mean, many drivers won't
> really want to use devlink for anything else, so I guess it should be as
> simple as the API that Luis proposed ("firmware crashed for this struct
> device"), if nothing more interesting is done with devlink?
> 
> Dunno. But anyway sounds like it should somehow integrate there rather
> than the way this patchset proposed?

Right, that'd be great. Simple API to register a devlink instance with
whatever number of reporters the device would need. I'm happy to help.