netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/3] phy: open_alliance_helpers: Add defines for link quality metrics

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: <4a1a72f5-44ce-4c54-9bc5-7465294a39fe@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 19:12:52 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/3] phy: open_alliance_helpers: Add defines
 for link quality metrics

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 09:32:17AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:59:37 +0200 Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > Introduce a set of defines for link quality (LQ) related metrics in the
> > Open Alliance helpers. These metrics include:
> > 
> > - `oa_lq_lfl_esd_event_count`: Number of ESD events detected by the Link
> >   Failures and Losses (LFL).
> > - `oa_lq_link_training_time`: Time required to establish a link.
> > - `oa_lq_remote_receiver_time`: Time required until the remote receiver
> >   signals that it is locked.
> > - `oa_lq_local_receiver_time`: Time required until the local receiver is
> >   locked.
> > - `oa_lq_lfl_link_loss_count`: Number of link losses.
> > - `oa_lq_lfl_link_failure_count`: Number of link failures that do not
> >   cause a link loss.
> > 
> > These standardized defines will be used by PHY drivers to report these
> > statistics.
> 
> If these are defined by a standard why not report them as structured
> data? Like we report ethtool_eth_mac_stats, ethtool_eth_ctrl_stats,
> ethtool_rmon_stats etc.?

We could do, but we have no infrastructure for this at the
moment. These are PHY statistics, not MAC statistics. We don't have
all the ethool_op infrastructure, etc. We also need to think about
which PHY do we want the statics from, the bootlin code for multiple
PHYs etc.

I will leave it up to Oleksij, but it would neatly avoid different
vendors returning the same stats with different names.

	Andrew