netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 6/6] devlink: add overwrite mode to flash update

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: <f7f2693c-13ee-8a60-65e0-05709464b838@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:59:56 -0700
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
Cc:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        Bin Luo <luobin9@...wei.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        Danielle Ratson <danieller@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 6/6] devlink: add overwrite mode to flash
 update



On 7/28/2020 10:09 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:58:44 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
>> On 7/28/2020 4:19 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Yes. Documentation is very easy to ignore unfortunatelly. The driver
>>> developer has to be tight up by the core code and api, I believe.
>>
>> So I'm not sure what the best proposal here is. We do have a list of
>> generic components, but given that each piece of HW has different
>> elements, it's not always feasible to have fully generic names. Some of
>> the names are driver specific.
>>
>> I guess we could use some system where components are "registered" when
>> loading the devlink, so that they can be verified by the stack when used
>> as a parameter for flash update? Perhaps take something like the
>> table-driven approach used for infos and extend that into devlink core
>> so that drivers basically register a table of the components which
>> includes both a function callback that gets the version string as well
>> as an indication of whether that component can be updated via flash_update?
>>
>> I know it would also be useful for ice to have a sort of "pre-info"
>> callback that generates a context structure that is passed to each of
>> the info callbacks. (that way a single up-front step could be to lookup
>> the relevant information, and this is then forwarded to each of the
>> formatter functions for each component).
>>
>> Am I on the right track here or just over-engineering?
> 
> I don't understand why we're having this conversation.
> 
> No driver right now uses the component name.
> 
> AFAIU we agreed not to use the component name for config vs code.
> 
> So you may as well remove the component name from the devlink op and
> add a todo there saying "when adding component back, make sure it's
> tightly coupled to info".
> 

Another simpler option would be to just call .info_get and verify that
the requested component appeared in that list. Ofcourse we'd be making
this call every flash_update...