netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1] devlink: Notify eswitch mode changes to devlink monitor

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: <20251121064813.57f2018b@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 06:48:13 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1] devlink: Notify eswitch mode changes to
 devlink monitor

On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 09:35:24 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 03:52:23PM +0100, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
> >On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 13:09:35 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:  
> >> Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 02:56:28AM +0100, kuba@...nel.org wrote:  
> >> 
> >> Nope, I reviewed internally, that's why the tag was taken.
> >>   
> >> Well, For the rest of the notifications, we have NEW/DEL commands.
> >> However in this case, as "eswitch" is somehow a subobject, there is no
> >> NEW/DEL value defined. I'm fine with using GET for notifications for it.
> >> I'm also okay with adding new ID, up to you.  
> >
> >Let's add a DEVLINK_CMD_ESWITCH_NTF. Having a separate ID makes it
> >easier / possible to use the same socket for requests and notifications.  
> 
> Well, you still can use the same socket with just ESWITCH_GET. Request
> messages are going from userspace, notifications from kernel, there is
> no mixup.

AFAICT DEVLINK_CMD_ESWITCH_GET is already used from kernel.
We could technically use the seq to differentiate but that's not very
generic.

> For the sake of consistency, shouldn't the name be ESWITCH_NEW?

No preference on the naming, we can go with _NEW, tho, as I think Parav
is alluding to, we don't send _NEW when device is created (which would
be the natural fit for _NEW). Perhaps we should?