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 07:46:55 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "idosch@...dia.com" <idosch@...dia.com>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "saeedm@...dia.com" <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        "vikas.gupta@...adcom.com" <vikas.gupta@...adcom.com>,
        "gospo@...adcom.com" <gospo@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 4/4] net: devlink: expose default flash update
 target

Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 12:07:41AM CEST, jacob.e.keller@...el.com wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
>> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 2:46 PM
>> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
>> Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>; netdev@...r.kernel.org; davem@...emloft.net;
>> idosch@...dia.com; pabeni@...hat.com; edumazet@...gle.com;
>> saeedm@...dia.com; vikas.gupta@...adcom.com; gospo@...adcom.com
>> Subject: Re: [patch net-next 4/4] net: devlink: expose default flash update target
>> 
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 20:59:28 +0000 Keller, Jacob E wrote:
>> > > 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?
>> > >
>> > > Also Documentation/ needs to be updated.
>> >
>> > Some of the components in ice include the DDP which has an info
>> > version, but which is not part of the flash but is loaded by the
>> > driver during initialization.
>> 
>> Right "entire device" as in "everything in 'stored'". Runtime loaded
>> stuff should not be listed in "stored" and therefore not be considered
>> "flashable". Correct?
>
>Yes I believe we don't list those as stored.
>
>We do have some extra version information that is reported through multiple info lines, i.e. we report:
>
>fw.mgmt
>fw.mgmt.api
>fw.mgmt.build
>
>where the .api and .build are sub-version fields of the fw.mgmt and can potentially give further information but are just a part of the fw.mgmt component. They can't be flashed separately.

Yep, in my patchset, this is accounted for. The driver can say if the
"version" is flashable (passed as a compenent name) or not. In this case,
it is not and it only tells the user version of some fw part.

>
>Thanks,
>Jake