netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v3 02/14] devlink: Add reload actions counters

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:   Fri, 4 Sep 2020 08:03:09 +0300
From:   Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v3 02/14] devlink: Add reload actions
 counters


On 9/2/2020 3:01 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 22:05:36 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
>>>> +void devlink_reload_actions_cnts_update(struct devlink *devlink, unsigned long actions_done)
>>>> +{
>>>> +  int action;
>>>> +
>>>> +  for (action = 0; action < DEVLINK_RELOAD_ACTION_MAX; action++) {
>>>> +          if (!test_bit(action, &actions_done))
>>>> +                  continue;
>>>> +          devlink->reload_actions_cnts[action]++;
>>>> +  }
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devlink_reload_actions_cnts_update);
>>> I don't follow why this is an exported symbol if you only use it from
>>> this .c. Looks like a leftover...
>>>
>> Not leftover, in the commit message I notified and explained why I
>> exposed it.
> We should generate devlink notifications on this event (down and up)
> so the counters don't have to be exposed to drivers. We need a more
> thorough API.


I will add devlink notifications for the counters, but what I meant here 
is to have counters data updated also on hosts that are having reset but 
didn't trigger the fw_activate action by themselves, so such host's 
devlink is not aware of it. I mean fw_activate action was triggered on 
another's host devlink sharing the same device/firmware.

Maybe I should have named this function 
devlink_reload_implicit_actions_performed().