netdev - Re: [patch net-next 4/4] net: devlink: expose default flash update target

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:   Sat, 20 Aug 2022 07:44:41 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, idosch@...dia.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
        jacob.e.keller@...el.com, vikas.gupta@...adcom.com,
        gospo@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 4/4] net: devlink: expose default flash update
 target

Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:54:59PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 10:12:16 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 04:53:01AM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>> >On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 15:00:42 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:  
>> >> Allow driver to mark certain version obtained by info_get() op as
>> >> "flash update default". Expose this information to user which allows him
>> >> to understand what version is going to be affected if he does flash
>> >> update without specifying the component. Implement this in netdevsim.  
>> >
>> >My intuition would be that if you specify no component you're flashing
>> >the entire device. Is that insufficient? Can you explain the use case?  
>> 
>> I guess that it up to the driver implementation. I can imagine arguments
>> for both ways. Anyway, there is no way to restrict this in kernel, so
>> let that up to the driver.
>
>To be clear - your intent is to impose more structure on the relation
>between the dev info and dev flash, right? But just "to be safe",

Correct. Basically I want to make things clear for the user in terms of
what he can flash, what component names he can pass, what happens during
flash without component. Also, I want to sanitize drivers so they cannot
accept *any* component name.

>there's no immediate need to do this?

Nope.

>
>The entire dev info / dev flash interface was driven by practical needs
>of the fleet management team @Facebook / Meta.
>
>What would make the changes you're making more useful here would be if
>instead of declaring the "default" component, we declared "overall"
>component. I.e. the component which is guaranteed to encompass all the
>other versions in "stored", and coincidentally is also the default
>flashed one.

It is just semantics. Default is what we have now and drivers are using
it. How, that is up to the driver. I see no way how to enforce this, do
you?

But anyway, I can split the patchset in 2:
1) sanitize components
2) default/overall/whatever
If that would help.


>
>That way the FW version reporting can be simplified to store only one
>version.