netdev - Re: [patch net-next 0/4] net: devlink: sync flash and dev info command

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: <d2d6f1a3-a9ea-3124-2652-92914172d997@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 15:39:06 +0530
From:   "Kumar, M Chetan" <m.chetan.kumar@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, 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, chandrashekar.devegowda@...el.com,
        soumya.prakash.mishra@...el.com, linuxwwan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 0/4] net: devlink: sync flash and dev info
 command

On 8/19/2022 1:55 PM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 04:49:40AM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 15:00:38 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Currently it is up to the driver what versions to expose and what flash
>>> update component names to accept. This is inconsistent. Thankfully, only
>>> netdevsim is currently using components, so it is a good time
>>> to sanitize this.
>>
>> Please take a look at recently merged code - 5417197dd516 ("Merge branch
>> 'wwan-t7xx-fw-flashing-and-coredump-support'"), I don't see any versions
>> there so I think you're gonna break them?
> 
> Ah, crap. Too late :/ They are passing the string to FW (cmd is
> the component name here):
> static int t7xx_devlink_fb_flash(const char *cmd, struct t7xx_port *port)
> {
>          char flash_command[T7XX_FB_COMMAND_SIZE];
> 
>          snprintf(flash_command, sizeof(flash_command), "%s:%s", T7XX_FB_CMD_FLASH, cmd);
>          return t7xx_devlink_fb_raw_command(flash_command, port, NULL);
> }
> 
> This breaks the pairing with info.versions assumption. Any possibility
> to revert this and let them redo?
> 
> Ccing m.chetan.kumar@...ux.intel.com, chandrashekar.devegowda@...el.com,
> soumya.prakash.mishra@...el.com
> 
> Guys, could you expose one version for component you are flashing? We
> need 1:1 mapping here.

Thanks for the heads-up.
I had a look at the patch & my understanding is driver is supposed
to expose flash update component name & version details via
devlink_info_version_running_put_ext().

Is version value a must ? Internally version value is not used for 
making any decision so in case driver/device doesn't support it should 
be ok to pass empty string ?

Ex:
devlink_info_version_running_put_ext(req, "fw", "",
  DEVLINK_INFO_VERSION_TYPE_COMPONENT);

One observation:-
While testing I noticed "flash_components:" is not getting displayed as 
mentioned in cover note.

Below is the snapshot for mtk_t7xx driver. Am I missing something here ?

# devlink dev info
pci/0000:55:00.0:
driver mtk_t7xx
versions:
        running:
            boot

-- 
Chetan