netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v1 2/4] devlink: Add devlink traps under devlink

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Sep 2020 09:16:41 +0300
From:   Aya Levin <ayal@...dia.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
CC:     Aya Levin <ayal@...lanox.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...lanox.com>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v1 2/4] devlink: Add devlink traps under
 devlink_ports context



On 9/8/2020 5:04 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 05:44:28PM CEST, idosch@...sch.org 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:
>>
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PARAM_GET
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PARAM_SET
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PARAM_NEW
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PARAM_DEL
>>
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_PARAM_GET
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_PARAM_SET
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_PARAM_NEW
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_PARAM_DEL
>>
>> And also with the general device/port commands:
>>
>> DEVLINK_CMD_GET
>> DEVLINK_CMD_SET
>> DEVLINK_CMD_NEW
>> DEVLINK_CMD_DEL
>>
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_GET
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_SET
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_NEW
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_DEL
>>
>> Wouldn't it be cleaner to add new commands?
>>
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_TRAP_GET
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_TRAP_SET
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_TRAP_NEW
>> DEVLINK_CMD_PORT_TRAP_DEL
>>
>> 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
>> [1]:
>>
>> "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 :/
> 
> 
>>
>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ac4cd4781eacd1fd185c85522e869bd5d3254b96
>>
>> 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.
Thanks for your input
I'm preparing V2
> 
> 
> [...]
>