netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/8] ethtool: Add ability to reset transceiver modules

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 06:54:23 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, mkubecek@...e.cz, pali@...nel.org,
        vadimp@...dia.com, mlxsw@...dia.com,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/8] ethtool: Add ability to reset
 transceiver modules

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:05:07 +0300 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > Again, i'm wondering, why is user space doing the reset? Can you think
> > of any other piece of hardware where Linux relies on user space
> > performing a reset before the kernel can properly use it?
> > 
> > How long does a reset take? Table 10-1 says the reset pulse must be
> > 10uS and table 10-2 says the reset should not take longer than
> > 2000ms.  
> 
> Takes about 1.5ms to get an ACK on the reset request and another few
> seconds to ensure module is in a valid operational state (will remove
> RTNL in next version).

Hm. RTNL-lock-less ethtool ops are a little concerning. The devlink
locking was much complicated by the unclear locking rules. Can we keep
ethtool simple and put this functionality in a different API or make
the reset async?

> > So maybe reset it on ifup if it is in a bad state?  
> 
> We can have multiple ports (split) using the same module and in CMIS
> each data path is controlled by a different state machine. Given the
> complexity of these modules and possible faults, it is possible to
> imagine a situation in which a few ports are fine and the rest are
> unable to obtain a carrier.
> 
> Resetting the module on ifup of swp1s0 is not intuitive and it shouldn't
> affect other split ports (e.g., swp1s1). With the dedicated reset
> command we have the ability to enforce all the required restrictions
> from the start instead of changing the behavior of existing commands.

Sounds similar to what ethtool --reset was trying to address (upper
16 bits). Could we reuse that? Whether its a SFP or other part of the
port being reset may not be entirely important to the user, so perhaps
it's not a bad idea to abstract that away and stick to "reset levels"?