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]

Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 13:45:55 -0700
From:   Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 1/5] devlink: add timeout information to
 status_notify

On 9/17/20 12:46 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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>

Thanks.


>
>> @@ -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

Hmmm... Unless there are any other comments on this, I think we can be 
consistent with the other fields here.

>
>> +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?

Yes, there are several examples of this.  The userland devlink.c does a 
check for total == 0 before calculating the percentage.

sln