netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v3 01/14] devlink: Add reload action 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: <20200907105850.34726158@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:58:50 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
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 01/14] devlink: Add reload action option
 to devlink reload command

On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 16:46:01 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
> > In that sense I don't like --live because it doesn't really say much.
> > AFAIU it means 1) no link flap; 2) < 2 sec datapath downtime; 3) no
> > configuration is lost in kernel or device (including netdev config,
> > link config, flow rules, counters etc.). I was hoping at least the
> > documentation in patch 14 would be more precise.  
> 
> Actually, while writing "no-reset" or "live-patching" I meant also no 
> downtime at all and nothing resets (config, rules ... anything), that 
> fits mlx5 live-patching.
> 
> However, to make it more generic,  I can allow few seconds downtime and 
> add similar constrains as you mentioned here to "no-reset". I will add 
> that to the documentation patch.

Oh! If your device supports no downtime and packet loss at all that's
great. You don't have to weaken the definition now, whoever needs a
weaker definition can add a different constraint level later, no?