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:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 16:04:09 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <>
To:     Ido Schimmel <>
Cc:     Aya Levin <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,,
        Moshe Shemesh <>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <>,
        Ido Schimmel <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v1 2/4] devlink: Add devlink traps under
 devlink_ports context

Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 05:44:28PM CEST, wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 06:32:12PM +0300, Aya Levin wrote:


>I understand how this struct allows you to re-use a lot of code between
>per-device and per-port traps, but it's mainly enabled by the fact that
>you use the same netlink commands for both per-device and per-port
>traps. Is this OK?
>I see this is already done for health reporters, but it's inconsistent
>with the devlink-param API:
>And also with the general device/port commands:
>Wouldn't it be cleaner to add new commands?
>I think the health API is the exception in this case and therefore might
>not be the best thing to mimic. IIUC, existing per-port health reporters
>were exposed as per-device and later moved to be exposed as per-port
>"This patchset comes to fix a design issue as some health reporters
>report on errors and run recovery on device level while the actual
>functionality is on port level. As for the current implemented devlink
>health reporters it is relevant only to Tx and Rx reporters of mlx5,
>which has only one port, so no real effect on functionality, but this
>should be fixed before more drivers will use devlink health reporters."

Yeah, this slipped trough my fingers unfortunatelly :/ But with
introduction of per-port health reporters, we could introduce new
commands, that would be no problem. Pity :/

>Since we still don't have per-port traps, we can design it better from
>the start.

I agree. Let's have a separate commands for per-port.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists