netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 01/13] devlink: Add reload level option to devlink reload command

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: <20200803135703.16967635@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 13:57:03 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
        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

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 16:14:42 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >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.

I was trying to avoid having to provide a Cartesian product of
operation and system disruption level, if any other action can
be done "live" at some point.

But no strong feelings about that one.

Really, as long as there is no driver-specific defaults (or as 
little driver-specific anything as possible) and user actions 
are clearly expressed (fw-reset does not necessarily imply
fw-activation) - the API will be fine IMO.