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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20220531080555.29b6ec6b@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 31 May 2022 08:05:55 -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 Tue, 31 May 2022 09:11:27 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >Nevermind, I think we can iterate over all the groupings.
> >Since I hope you agreed that component has an established  
> 
> Yeah, component=version. I will send a RFC soon that tights it together.
> 
> >meaning can we use group instead?  
> 
> Group of what? Could you provide me example what you mean?

Group of components. As explained component has an existing meaning,
we can't reuse the term with a different one now.

> >> Sorry, I'm a bit lost. Could you please provide some example about how
> >> you envision it? For me it is a guessing game :/
> >> My guess is you would like to add to the version nest where
> >> DEVLINK_ATTR_INFO_VERSION_NAME resides for example
> >> DEVLINK_ATTR_LINECARD_INDEX?
> >> 
> >> Correct?  
> >
> >Yup.  
> 
> Hmm, in that case, I'm not sure how to do this. As cmd options and       
> outputs should match, we would have:                                     
>                                                           
> devlink dev info                                                         
> lc2.fw 19.2010.1310                                                      
>                                                                          
> here lc2 and fw are concatenated from DEVLINK_ATTR_LINECARD_INDEX and DEVLINK_ATTR_INFO_VERSION_NAME

lc2 is the group name.
                                                     
> Now on devlink dev flash side, when I pass "component lc2.fw", how could 
> the "devlink dev flash" know to divide it to DEVLINK_ATTR_LINECARD_INDEX 
> and FLASH_COMPONENT? Should I parse the cmd line option and figure the
> "lcX." prefix into an attribute?
>                                                        
> Or, we would have to have something like:                                    
> devlink dev flash pci/0000:01:00.0 lc 2 component fw file mellanox/fw-AGB-rel-19_2010_1312-022-EVB.mfa2

Yup, it'll make DaveA happy as well.

> But to be consistent with the output, we would have to change "devlink   
> dev info" to something like:                                             
> pci/0000:01:00.0:                                                        
>   versions:                                                              
>       running:                                                           
>         fw 1.2.3                                                         
>         fw.mgmt 10.20.30                                                 
>         lc 2 fw 19.2010.1310                                             

Yup.
                                                            
> But that would break the existing JSON output, because "running" is an array:
>                 "running": {                                             
>                     "fw": "1.2.3",                                       
>                     "fw.mgmt": "10.20.30"                                
>                 },                                                       

No, the lc versions should be in separate nests. Since they are not
updated when flashing main FW mixing them into existing versions would
break uAPI.

> So probably better to stick to "lcx.y" notation in both devlink dev info
> and flash and split/squash to attributes internally. What do you think?

BTW how do you intend to activate the new FW? Extend the reload command?