netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/8] net/mlx5e: Expose the VF/SF RX drop counter on the representor

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, 1 Apr 2024 08:03:15 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed
 <saeedm@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky
 <leonro@...dia.com>, Carolina Jubran <cjubran@...dia.com>, Aya Levin
 <ayal@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/8] net/mlx5e: Expose the VF/SF RX drop
 counter on the representor

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 21:52:06 +0300 Tariq Toukan wrote:
> >> Hi Carolina and Tariq,
> >>
> >> I am wondering if any consideration was given to making this
> >> a generic counter. Buffer exhaustion sounds like something that
> >> other NICs may report too.  
> > 
> > I think it's basically rx_missed_errors from rtnl_link_stats64.
> > mlx5 doesn't currently report it at all, AFAICT.
> 
> We expose it in ethtool stats.
> Note that the "local" RX buffer exhaustion counter exists for a long time.
> 
> Here we introduce in the representor kind of a "remote" version of the 
> counter, to help providers monitor RX drops that occur in the customers' 
> side.
> 
> It follows the local counter hence currently it is not generic.

I thought you'd say that, but we can't apply the rules selectively.
Everyone has "local" counters already when we add the generic ones.
Especially when we start broadening the "have" to encompass other
generations of HW / netdev instance types.