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 15:11:06 -0700
From:   Shannon Nelson <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Jacob Keller <>
Cc:     "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2] ionic: add devlink firmware update

On 9/15/20 12:00 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:44:07 -0700 Jacob Keller wrote:
>> Exactly how I saw it.
>> Basically, the timeout should take effect as long as the (component,
>> msg) pair stays the same.
>> So if you send percentage reports with the same message and component,
>> then the timeout stays in effect. Once you start a new message, then the
>> timeout would be reset.
> I don't think I agree with that. As I said that'd make the timeout not
> match the reality of what happens in the driver.

I have an asynchronous FW interaction where the driver sends one FW 
command to start the fw-install and sends several more FW commands to 
check on the status until either it gets a done or error status or too 
many seconds have elapsed.  How would you suggest this gets modeled?

In the model you are suggesting, the driver can only do a single 
status_notify with a timeout before the initial async FW command, then 
no other status_notify messages until the driver gets the done/error 
status, or the time has elapsed, regardless of how long that might 
take.  The user will only see the timeout ticking, but no activity from 
the driver.  This allows the user to see what the deadline is, but 
doesn't reassure them that the process is still moving.

I'm suggesting that the driver might send some intermediate 
status_notify messages in order to assure the user that things are not 
stalled out.  Driving a spinner would be nice, but we don't have that 
concept in this interface, so poking the done/total values could be used 
for that.  In order to not reset the timeout on each of these 
intermediate updates, we pass the same timeout value.

At this point I'm going to try a patchset that implements the basics 
that we already have agreed upon, and this detail can get worked out 
later, as I believe it doesn't change the internal implementation.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists