netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/11] mlxsw: extend line card model by devices and info

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:   Wed, 25 May 2022 08:20:45 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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

Tue, May 24, 2022 at 08:00:57PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Tue, 24 May 2022 16:31:45 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >Sure. I considered that. The thing is, even if you put the lc component
>> >names to output of "devlink dev info", you would need to provide lc
>> >objects as well (somehow) - to contain the versions.
>> >
>> >But the component name is related to lc object listed in "devlink lc",
>> >so "devlink lc info" sounds line the correct place to put it.
>> >
>> >If you are concern about "devlink dev flash" using component name from
>> >"devlink lc info", I would rather introduce "devlink lc flash" so you
>> >have a match. But from what I see, I don't really see the necessity for
>> >this match. Do you?  
>> 
>> Okay, we can eventually avoid using component name at all for now,
>> considering one flash object per linecard (with possibility to extend by
>> component later on). This would look like:
>> 
>> $ devlink lc info pci/0000:01:00.0 lc 8
>> pci/0000:01:00.0:
>>   lc 8
>>     versions:
>>         fixed:
>>           hw.revision 0
>> 	  fw.psid MT_0000000749
>>         running:
>>           ini.version 4
>>           fw 19.2010.1310
>> 
>> $ devlink lc flash pci/0000:01:00.0 lc 8 file mellanox/fw-AGB-rel-19_2010_1312-022-EVB.mfa2
>> 
>> I have to admit I like this.
>> We would reuse the existing DEVLINK_CMD_FLASH_UPDATE cmd and when
>> DEVLINK_ATTR_LINECARD_INDEX attribute is present, we call the lc-flash
>> op. How does this sound?
>
>We talked about this earlier in the thread, I think. If you need both
>info and flash per LC just make them a separate devlink instance and
>let them have all the objects they need. Then just put the instance
>name under lc info.

I don't follow :/ What do you mean be "separate devlink instance" here?
Could you draw me an example?