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, 15 Sep 2020 16:50:48 +0000
From:   "Keller, Jacob E" <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Shannon Nelson <>
CC:     "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2] ionic: add devlink firmware update

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:51 AM
> To: Shannon Nelson <>
> Cc: Keller, Jacob E <>;;
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2] ionic: add devlink firmware update
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 18:14:22 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote:
> > So now we're beginning to dance around timeout boundaries - how can we
> > define the beginning and end of a timeout boundary, and how do they
> > relate to the component and label?  Currently, if either the component
> > or status_msg changes, the devlink user program does a newline to start
> > a new status line.  The done and total values are used from each notify
> > message to create a % value displayed, but are not dependent on any
> > previous done or total values, so the total doesn't need to be the same
> > value from status message to status message, even if the component and
> > label remain the same, devlink will just print whatever % gets
> > calculated that time.
> I think systemd removes the timeout marking when it moves on to the
> next job, and so should devlink when it moves on to the next
> component/status_msg.
> > I'm thinking that the behavior of the timeout value should remain
> > separate from the component and status_msg values, such that once given,
> > then the userland countdown continues on that timeout.  Each subsequent
> > notify, regardless of component or label changes, should continue
> > reporting that same timeout value for as long as it applies to the
> > action.  If a new timeout value is reported, the countdown starts over.
> What if no timeout exists for the next action? Driver reports 0 to
> "clear"?
> > This continues until either the countdown finishes or the driver reports
> > the flash as completed.  I think this allows is the flexibility for
> > multiple steps that Jake alludes to above.  Does this make sense?
> I disagree. This doesn't match reality/driver behavior and will lead to
> timeouts counting to some random value, that's to say the drivers
> timeout instant will not match when user space reaches timeout.
> The timeout should be per notification, because drivers send a
> notification per command, and commands have timeout.

This is how everything operates today. Just send a new status for every command.

Is that not how your case works?

> The timeout is only needed if there is no progress to report, i.e.
> driver is waiting for something to happen.


> > What should the userland program do when the timeout expires?  Start
> > counting backwards?  Stop waiting?  Do we care to define this at the moment?
> [component] bla bla X% (timeout reached)

Yep. I don't think userspace should bail or do anything but display here. Basically: the driver will timeout and then end the update process with an error. The timeout value is just a useful display so that users aren't confused why there is no output going on while waiting.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists