netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ionic: add devlink firmware 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: <9937d5f2-21a1-53cc-e7fb-075b3014a344@pensando.io>
Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 08:58:42 -0700
From:   Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ionic: add devlink firmware update

On 9/2/20 11:01 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 09:57:17PM CEST, snelson@...sando.io wrote:
>> Add support for firmware update through the devlink interface.
>> This update copies the firmware object into the device, asks
>> the current firmware to install it, then asks the firmware to
>> set the device to use the new firmware on the next boot-up.
>>
>> The install and activate steps are launched as asynchronous
>> requests, which are then followed up with status requests
>> commands.  These status request commands will be answered with
>> an EAGAIN return value and will try again until the request
>> has completed or reached the timeout specified.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
[...]
>> +
>> +	netdev_info(netdev, "Installing firmware %s\n", fw_name);
> You don't need this dmesg messagel.
>
>
>> +
>> +	dl = priv_to_devlink(ionic);
>> +	devlink_flash_update_begin_notify(dl);
>> +	devlink_flash_update_status_notify(dl, "Preparing to flash", NULL, 0, 0);
>> +
[...]
>> +		if (err) {
>> +			netdev_err(netdev,
>> +				   "download failed offset 0x%x addr 0x%lx len 0x%x\n",
>> +				   offset, offsetof(union ionic_dev_cmd_regs, data),
>> +				   copy_sz);
> And this one.
>
>
>> +			NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Segment download failed");
>> +			goto err_out;
>> +		}
[...]
>> +	devlink_flash_update_status_notify(dl, "Activating", NULL, 2, 2);
>> +
>> +	netdev_info(netdev, "Firmware update completed\n");
> And this one.
>
>
>> +
>> +err_out:
>> +	if (err)
>> +		devlink_flash_update_status_notify(dl, "Flash failed", NULL, 0, 0);
>> +	release_firmware(fw);
>> +	devlink_flash_update_end_notify(dl);
>> +	return err;
>> +}
>>

True, they aren't "needed" for operational purposes, but they are rather 
useful when inspecting a system after getting a report of bad behavior, 
and since this should be seldom performed there should be no risk of 
filling the log.  As far as I can tell, the devlink messages are only 
seen at the time the flash is performed as output from the flash 
command, or from a devlink monitor if someone started it before the 
flash operation.  Is there any other place that can be inspected later 
that will indicate someone was fussing with the firmware?

sln