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:   Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:46:13 +0530
From:   Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>
To:     Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <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, Sep 9, 2020 at 10:51 PM Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com> 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 ] ]
>
This sounds good. As coming to our device, user can issue

$devlink dev reload DEV action fw_activate

which resets both firmware and driver entities to activate the new
firmware (either pending flashed firmware or reset current firmware).

Thanks for the patch series.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists