netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 11/11] devlink: extend health reporter dump selector by port index

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: <20230801085644.7be5b2e4@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:56:44 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
 edumazet@...gle.com, moshe@...dia.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
 idosch@...dia.com, petrm@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 11/11] devlink: extend health reporter dump
 selector by port index

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:49:45 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >for_each_obj() {
> >	if (obj_dump_filtered(obj, dump_info))  // < run filter
> >		continue;                       // < skip object
> >
> >	dump_one(obj)  
> 
> I don't see how this would help. For example, passing PORT_INDEX, I know
> exactly what object to reach, according to this PORT_INDEX. Why to
> iterate over all of them and try the filter? Does not make sense to me.
> 
> Maybe we are each understanding this feature differently. This is about
> passing keys which index the objects. It is always devlink handle,
> sometimes port index and I see another example in shared buffer index.
> That's about it. Basically user passes partial tuple of indexes.
> Example:
> devlink port show
> the key is: bus_name/dev_name/port_index
> user passes bus_name/dev_name, this is the selector, a partial key.
> 
> The sophisticated filtering is not a focus of this patchset. User can do
> it putting bpf filter on the netlink socket.

Okay, I was trying to be helpful, I don't want to argue for
a particular implementation. IMO what's posted is too ugly
to be merged, please restructure it.