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]

Date:   Wed, 9 Sep 2020 12:24:17 -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 Wed, 9 Sep 2020 16:27:19 +0300 Moshe Shemesh wrote:
> On 9/7/2020 8:58 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > 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?  
> 
> Yes, but if we are thinking there will be more levels, maybe the flag 
> "--live" or "--no_reset" is less extendable, we may need new attr. I 
> mean should I have uAPI command line like:
> 
> $ devlink dev reload DEV [ netns { PID | NAME | ID } ] [ action { 
> driver_reinit | fw_activate } [ limit_level  no_reset ] ]

That LGTM, thanks.