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:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 16:14:42 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 01/13] devlink: Add reload level option to
 devlink reload command

Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 11:32:25PM CEST, moshe@...lanox.com wrote:
>
>On 7/31/2020 2:11 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:30:45 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
>> > > > > My expectations would be that the driver must perform the lowest
>> > > > > reset level possible that satisfies the requested functional change.
>> > > > > IOW driver may do more, in fact it should be acceptable for the
>> > > > > driver to always for a full HW reset (unless --live or other
>> > > > > constraint is specified).
>> > > > OK, but some combinations may still not be valid for specific driver
>> > > > even if it tries lowest level possible.
>> > > Can you give an example?
>> > For example take the combination of fw-live-patch and param-init.
>> > 
>> > The fw-live-patch needs no re-initialization, while the param-init
>> > requires driver re-initialization.
>> > 
>> > So the only way to do that is to the one command after the other, not
>> > really combining.
>> You need to read my responses more carefully. I don't have
>> fw-live-patch in my proposal. The operation is fw-activate,
>> --live is independent and an constraint, not an operation.
>
>
>OK, I probably didn't get the whole picture right.
>
>I am not sure I got it yet, please review if that's the uAPI that you mean
>to:
>
>devlink dev reload [ net-ns-respawn { PID | NAME | ID } ] [ driver-param-init
>] [ fw-activate [ --live] ]

Jakub, why do you prefer to have another extra level-specific option
"live"? I think it is clear to have it as a separate level. The behaviour
of the operation is quite different.


>
>
>Also, I recall that before devlink param was added the devlink reload was
>used for devlink resources.

Yes. That was the primary usecase. That is also why mlxsw does fw reset,
because the fw reset is needed in order to pass resources configuration.

So I don't think that the name should be "driver-param-init" as it is
not specific to params.


>
>I am not sure it is still used for devlink resources as I don't see it in the
>code of devlink reload.
>
>But if it is we probably should add it as another operation.
>
>Jiri, please comment on that.
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists