netdev - Re: [p4tc-discussions] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 10/28] p4tc: add pipeline create, get, update, delete

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: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 11:13:17 -0400
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...atatu.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, deb.chatterjee@...el.com, 
	tom@...anda.io, p4tc-discussions@...devconf.info, Mahesh.Shirshyad@....com, 
	Vipin.Jain@....com, tomasz.osinski@...el.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, 
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, 
	khalidm@...dia.com, toke@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [p4tc-discussions] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 10/28] p4tc: add
 pipeline create, get, update, delete

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 10:36 AM Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 10:32:20AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:12 AM Simon Horman via p4tc-discussions
> > <p4tc-discussions@...devconf.info> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 07:02:14AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > >
> > > > +static void __tcf_pipeline_init(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     int pipeid = P4TC_KERNEL_PIPEID;
> > > > +
> > > > +     root_pipeline = kzalloc(sizeof(*root_pipeline), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > > +     if (!root_pipeline) {
> > > > +             pr_err("Unable to register kernel pipeline\n");
> > >
> > > Hi Victor, Pedro, and Jamal,
> > >
> > > a minor nit from my side: in general it is preferred not to to log messages
> > > for allocation failures, as the mm core does this already.
> > >
> >
> > We debated this one - the justification was we wanted to see more
> > details of what exactly failed since this is invoked earlier in the
> > loading. Thoughts?
>
> Yeah, this is not so clear cut as the glib remark in my previous email implied.
> I guess the question is: what does this extra message give us?
> If it provides value, I don't object to it staying.

The arguement for it is as follows:
let's say post-boot you try to use the root pipeline and it fails, the
logs will indicate that it failed to alloc. In any case, it is one of
those things 6/12, so you could argue both directions so we can remove
it.

cheers,
jamal