| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <DM6PR12MB4202100B7C79855A104B810DC1D89@DM6PR12MB4202.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 08:53:23 +0000
From: "Lucero Palau, Alejandro" <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"Lucero Palau, Alejandro" <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-net-drivers (AMD-Xilinx)" <linux-net-drivers@....com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"habetsm.xilinx@...il.com" <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
"ecree.xilinx@...il.com" <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"jiri@...dia.com" <jiri@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 2/8] sfc: add devlink info support for ef100
On 2/8/23 07:35, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 06:24:05PM CET, alejandro.lucero-palau@....com wrote:
>> On 2/7/23 15:10, Lucero Palau, Alejandro wrote:
>>> On 2/7/23 14:58, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>> Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 03:42:45PM CET, alejandro.lucero-palau@....com wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/23 11:58, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>>>> Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 12:14:17PM CET, alejandro.lucero-palau@....com wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero-palau@....com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Support for devlink info command.
>>>>>> You are quite brief for couple hundred line patch. Care to shed some
>>>>>> more details for the reader? Also, use imperative mood (applies to the
>>>>>> rest of the pathes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK. I'll be more talkative and imperative here.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> +static int efx_devlink_info_get(struct devlink *devlink,
>>>>>>> + struct devlink_info_req *req,
>>>>>>> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct efx_devlink *devlink_private = devlink_priv(devlink);
>>>>>>> + struct efx_nic *efx = devlink_private->efx;
>>>>>>> + char msg[NETLINK_MAX_FMTMSG_LEN];
>>>>>>> + int errors_reported = 0;
>>>>>>> + int rc;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* Several different MCDI commands are used. We report first error
>>>>>>> + * through extack along with total number of errors. Specific error
>>>>>>> + * information via system messages.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> + rc = efx_devlink_info_board_cfg(efx, req);
>>>>>>> + if (rc) {
>>>>>>> + sprintf(msg, "Getting board info failed");
>>>>>>> + errors_reported++;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + rc = efx_devlink_info_stored_versions(efx, req);
>>>>>>> + if (rc) {
>>>>>>> + if (!errors_reported)
>>>>>>> + sprintf(msg, "Getting stored versions failed");
>>>>>>> + errors_reported += rc;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + rc = efx_devlink_info_running_versions(efx, req);
>>>>>>> + if (rc) {
>>>>>>> + if (!errors_reported)
>>>>>>> + sprintf(msg, "Getting board info failed");
>>>>>>> + errors_reported++;
>>>>>> Under which circumstances any of the errors above happen? Is it a common
>>>>>> thing? Or is it result of some fatal event?
>>>>> They are not common at all. If any of those happen, it is a bad sign,
>>>>> and it is more than likely there are more than one because something is
>>>>> not working properly. That is the reason I only report first error found
>>>>> plus the total number of errors detected.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You treat it like it is quite common, which seems very odd to me.
>>>>>> If they are rare, just return error right away to the caller.
>>>>> Well, that is done now. And as I say, I'm not reporting all but just the
>>>>> first one, mainly because the buffer limitation with NETLINK_MAX_FMTMSG_LEN.
>>>>>
>>>>> If errors trigger, a more complete information will appear in system
>>>>> messages, so that is the reason with:
>>>>>
>>>>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT(extack,
>>>>> + "%s. %d total errors. Check system messages",
>>>>> + msg, errors_reported);
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you are concerned with the extack report being overwhelmed, but
>>>>> I do not think that is the case.
>>>> No, I'm wondering why you just don't put error message into exack and
>>>> return -ESOMEERROR right away.
>>> Well, I thought the idea was to give more information to user space
>>> about the problem.
>>>
>>> Previous patchsets were not reporting any error nor error information
>>> through extack. Now we have both.
>>
>> Just trying to make more sense of this.
>>
>> Because that limit with NETLINK_MAX_FMTMSG_LEN, what I think is big
>> enough, some control needs to be taken about what to report. It could be
>> just to write the buffer with the last error and report that last one
> Wait. My point is: fail on the first error returning the error to
> info_get() caller. Just that. No accumulation of anything.
OK. I'll do just that in v6.
Thanks
>
>> only, with no need of keeping total errors count. But I felt once we
>> handle any error, reporting that extra info about the total errors
>> detected should not be a problem at all, even if it is an unlikely
>> situation.
>>
>> BTW, I said we were reporting both, the error and the extack error
>> message, but I've realized the function was not returning any error but
>> always 0, so I'll fix that.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (errors_reported)
>>>>>>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT(extack,
>>>>>>> + "%s. %d total errors. Check system messages",
>>>>>>> + msg, errors_reported);
>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> static const struct devlink_ops sfc_devlink_ops = {
>>>>>>> + .info_get = efx_devlink_info_get,
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>> [...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists