netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: dsa: add Arrow SpeedChips XRS700x driver

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: <20201127131346.3d594c8e@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:13:46 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        George McCollister <george.mccollister@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND..." <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: dsa: add Arrow SpeedChips XRS700x
 driver

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 21:47:14 +0100 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Is the periodic refresh really that awful? We're mostly talking error
> > counters here so every second or every few seconds should be perfectly
> > fine.  
> 
> Humm, i would prefer error counts to be more correct than anything
> else. When debugging issues, you generally don't care how many packets
> worked. It is how many failed you are interesting, and how that number
> of failures increases.

Right, but not sure I'd use the word "correct". Perhaps "immediately up
to date"?

High speed NICs usually go through a layer of firmware before they
access the stats, IOW even if we always synchronously ask for the stats
in the kernel - in practice a lot of NICs (most?) will return some form
of cached information.

> So long as these counters are still in ethtool -S, i guess it does not
> matter. That i do trust to be accurate, and probably consistent across
> the counters it returns.

Not in the NIC designs I'm familiar with.

But anyway - this only matters in some strict testing harness, right?
Normal users will look at a stats after they noticed issues (so minutes
/ hours later) or at the very best they'll look at a graph, which will
hardly require <1sec accuracy to when error occurred.