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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:04:57 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
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

Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 05:56:44PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>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.

Ugly in which sense? What exactly needs to be restructured?