netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 1/5] devlink: add timeout information to status

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]

Message-ID: <20200917124655.6bc16d99@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:46:55 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 1/5] devlink: add timeout information to
 status_notify

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 20:02:00 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote:
> Add a timeout element to the DEVLINK_CMD_FLASH_UPDATE_STATUS
> netlink message for use by a userland utility to show that
> a particular firmware flash activity may take a long but
> bounded time to finish.  Also add a handy helper for drivers
> to make use of the new timeout value.
> 
> UI usage hints:
>  - if non-zero, add timeout display to the end of the status line
>  	[component] status_msg  ( Xm Ys : Am Bs )
>      using the timeout value for Am Bs and updating the Xm Ys
>      every second
>  - if the timeout expires while awaiting the next update,
>    display something like
>  	[component] status_msg  ( timeout reached : Am Bs )
>  - if new status notify messages are received, remove
>    the timeout and start over
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>

Minor nits, otherwise LGTM:

Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>

> @@ -3052,6 +3054,9 @@ static int devlink_nl_flash_update_fill(struct sk_buff *msg,
>  	if (nla_put_u64_64bit(msg, DEVLINK_ATTR_FLASH_UPDATE_STATUS_TOTAL,
>  			      total, DEVLINK_ATTR_PAD))
>  		goto nla_put_failure;
> +	if (nla_put_u64_64bit(msg, DEVLINK_ATTR_FLASH_UPDATE_STATUS_TIMEOUT,
> +			      timeout, DEVLINK_ATTR_PAD))
> +		goto nla_put_failure;

nit: since old kernels don't report this user space has to deal with it
     not being present so I'd be tempted to only report it if timeout
     is not 0

> +void devlink_flash_update_timeout_notify(struct devlink *devlink,
> +					 const char *status_msg,
> +					 const char *component,
> +					 unsigned long timeout)
> +{
> +	__devlink_flash_update_notify(devlink,
> +				      DEVLINK_CMD_FLASH_UPDATE_STATUS,
> +				      status_msg, component, 0, 0, timeout);

nit: did we ever report cmd == UPDATE_STATUS and total == 0?
     could this cause a division by zero in some unsuspecting
     implementation? Perhaps we should pass 1 here?

> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devlink_flash_update_timeout_notify);