netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dlink: add get_ethtool

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

Message-ID: <c0cafab5-7a8a-49a4-8d46-a79b47eee867@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:53:29 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Moon Yeounsu <yyyynoom@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dlink: add get_ethtool_stats in ethtool

> Regarding the RMON statistics, I understand that you are advising me to use the
> structured ethtool_rmon_stats for RMON statistics and to reserve unstructured
> ethtool -S (without groups) for non-standard statistics. The documentation[1]
> specifies grouping RMON statistics, but there are other statistics in my patch
> that are not part of the RMON. Would it be appropriate to group these
> additional statistics as well?

Groups are used where we expect drivers to offer the same
statistics. Having the group means we have a well defined interface,
where as in the past they were just dumped in ethtool -S, often with
inconsistent names. So once you have extracted the RMON stats, see
what you have left and see if they fit any of the existing groups. If
not, they are probably just what the hardware vendor thought was
useful, rather than being defined by some standard, so can be part of
the unstructured output of ethtool -S.

	Andrew