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:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:38:45 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com,
        jiri@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com, dsahern@...il.com,
        andrew@...n.ch, mlxsw@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/11] mlxsw: extend line card model by devices
 and info

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 21:29:16 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >The main question to me is whether users will want to flash the entire
> >device, or update line cards individually.  
> 
> I think it makes sense to update them individually. The versions are
> also reported individually.

Okay, but neither I want that, nor does it match what Ido described as
the direction for mlxsw, quoting:

  The idea (implemented in the next patchset) is to let these devices
  expose their own "component name", which can then be plugged into the
  existing flash command:

    $ devlink lc show pci/0000:01:00.0 lc 8
    pci/0000:01:00.0:
      lc 8 state active type 16x100G
        supported_types:
           16x100G
        devices:
          device 0 flashable true component lc8_dev0
          device 1 flashable false
          device 2 flashable false
          device 3 flashable false
    $ devlink dev flash pci/0000:01:00.0 file some_file.mfa2 component lc8_dev0

Your "devices" are _not_ individually flashable. It seems natural for
single-board devices like a NIC or a line card to have a single flash
with all the images burned together.

> What's the benefit of not doing that.

As already mentioned in my previous reply the user will likely have 
a database of all their networking assets, and having to break them
up further than the physical piece of gear they order from the supplier
is a pain. Plus the vendor will likely also prefer to ship a single
validated image rather than a blob for every board component with FW.

> Also, how would you name the "group" component. Sounds odd to me.

To flash the whole device we skip the component.

> >What's inside mellanox/fw-AGB-rel-19_2010_1312-022-EVB.mfa2? Doesn't
> >sound like it's FW just for a single gearbox?

Please answer questions. I already complained about this once in 
this thread.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists