netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] devlink: add fw bank select parameter

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: <d194be5e-886b-d69b-7d8d-3894354abe7f@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2022 16:47:31 -0800
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <jiri@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] devlink: add fw bank select parameter

On 12/8/2022 10:44 AM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> On 12/7/22 4:36 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2022 11:29:58 -0800 Shannon Nelson wrote:
>>> Is this reasonable?
>>
>> Well, the point of the multiple versions was that vendors can expose
>> components. Let's take the simplest example of management FW vs option
>> rom/UNDI:
>>
>>          stored:
>>            fw            1.2.3
>>            fw.bundle     March 123
>>            fw.undi       0.5.6
>>
>> What I had in mind was to add bank'ed sections:
>>
>>          stored (bank 0, active, current):
>>            fw            1.2.3
>>            fw.bundle     March 123
>>            fw.undi       0.5.6
>>          stored (bank 1):
>>            fw            1.4.0
>>            fw.bundle     May 123
>>            fw.undi       0.6.0
> 
> Seems reasonable at first glance...
> 
> 

This is what I was thinking of and looks good to me. As for how to add 
attributes to get us from the current netlink API to this, I'm not 100% 
sure.

I think we can mostly just add the bank ID and flags to indicate which 
one is active and which one will be programmed next.

I think we could also add a new attribute to both reload and flash which 
specify which bank to use. For flash, this would be which bank to 
program, and for update this would be which bank to load the firmware 
from when doing a "fw_activate".

Is that reasonable? Do you still need a permanent "use this bank by 
default" parameter as well?