The link speed is available at /sys/class/net/$nic/speed.
However, in some cases, depending on the driver, if the link is
not plugged, -1 is reported (this is the case of e1000e for
instance). To make things worse, the value is printed out as an
unsigned integer, so you'll get this shady number which you can't
evaluate correctly. This is actually a regression in 3.X kernels
as the commit that broke things is 8ae6daca. With this change,
you'll get -EINVAL whenever a -1 is to be printed out.
Before the change:
# cat /sys/class/net/eth0/speed
4294967295
After the change:
# cat /sys/class/net/eth0/speed
cat: /sys/class/net/eth0/speed: Invalid argument
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
---
net/core/net-sysfs.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/net-sysfs.c b/net/core/net-sysfs.c
index 1cac29e..ce4b298 100644
--- a/net/core/net-sysfs.c
+++ b/net/core/net-sysfs.c
@@ -172,8 +172,13 @@ static ssize_t speed_show(struct device *dev,
if (netif_running(netdev)) {
struct ethtool_cmd cmd;
- if (!__ethtool_get_settings(netdev, &cmd))
- ret = sprintf(buf, fmt_udec, ethtool_cmd_speed(&cmd));
+ if (!__ethtool_get_settings(netdev, &cmd)) {
+ __u32 speed = ethtool_cmd_speed(&cmd);
+
+ if (speed != (__u32) -1)
+ ret = sprintf(buf, fmt_udec,
+ ethtool_cmd_speed(&cmd));
+ }
}
rtnl_unlock();
return ret;
--
2.0.0
Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:40:30AM CEST, [email protected] wrote:
>The link speed is available at /sys/class/net/$nic/speed.
>However, in some cases, depending on the driver, if the link is
>not plugged, -1 is reported (this is the case of e1000e for
>instance). To make things worse, the value is printed out as an
Actually, SPEED_UNKNOWN is also -1
So e1000e is not any exception.
>unsigned integer, so you'll get this shady number which you can't
>evaluate correctly. This is actually a regression in 3.X kernels
>as the commit that broke things is 8ae6daca. With this change,
>you'll get -EINVAL whenever a -1 is to be printed out.
>
>Before the change:
> # cat /sys/class/net/eth0/speed
> 4294967295
>
>After the change:
> # cat /sys/class/net/eth0/speed
> cat: /sys/class/net/eth0/speed: Invalid argument
>
>Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
>---
> net/core/net-sysfs.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/net/core/net-sysfs.c b/net/core/net-sysfs.c
>index 1cac29e..ce4b298 100644
>--- a/net/core/net-sysfs.c
>+++ b/net/core/net-sysfs.c
>@@ -172,8 +172,13 @@ static ssize_t speed_show(struct device *dev,
>
> if (netif_running(netdev)) {
> struct ethtool_cmd cmd;
>- if (!__ethtool_get_settings(netdev, &cmd))
>- ret = sprintf(buf, fmt_udec, ethtool_cmd_speed(&cmd));
>+ if (!__ethtool_get_settings(netdev, &cmd)) {
>+ __u32 speed = ethtool_cmd_speed(&cmd);
>+
>+ if (speed != (__u32) -1)
Just rather use SPEED_UNKNOWN instead of -1 here.
>+ ret = sprintf(buf, fmt_udec,
>+ ethtool_cmd_speed(&cmd));
>+ }
> }
> rtnl_unlock();
> return ret;
>--
>2.0.0
>
From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:57:33 +0200
> Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:40:30AM CEST, [email protected] wrote:
>>The link speed is available at /sys/class/net/$nic/speed.
>>However, in some cases, depending on the driver, if the link is
>>not plugged, -1 is reported (this is the case of e1000e for
>>instance). To make things worse, the value is printed out as an
>
> Actually, SPEED_UNKNOWN is also -1
> So e1000e is not any exception.
And pity the person who is handling this by evaluating that unsigned
value, we'll break them.
We can't keep changing behavior for the SPEED_UNKOWN case back and
forth.
A program that wants to work with all kernels now has to handle three
different kinds of behavior if we apply this patch, that's not making
things better, it's making things worse.
I'm not applying a patch that does this, sorry.
On 06.06.2014 21:54, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:57:33 +0200
>
>> Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:40:30AM CEST, [email protected] wrote:
>>> The link speed is available at /sys/class/net/$nic/speed.
>>> However, in some cases, depending on the driver, if the link is
>>> not plugged, -1 is reported (this is the case of e1000e for
>>> instance). To make things worse, the value is printed out as an
>>
>> Actually, SPEED_UNKNOWN is also -1
>> So e1000e is not any exception.
>
> And pity the person who is handling this by evaluating that unsigned
> value, we'll break them.
>
> We can't keep changing behavior for the SPEED_UNKOWN case back and
> forth.
>
> A program that wants to work with all kernels now has to handle three
> different kinds of behavior if we apply this patch, that's not making
> things better, it's making things worse.
I don't think this is a good reason to keep things broken. By the same
token we wouldn't need to fix any bug since there already might be an
application that learned how to deal with it.
This patch is not introducing any new class that applications need to
learn. It just barely removes the spurious one. And it's perfectly okay
in some ecosystems to require minimal version of some programs,
including kernel. So if I were developing brand new application I could
say: I'm dropping all this workaround code and have it clean and require
say 3.16 kernel at least. Moreover, using an older application would do,
as the workaround code will never be executed.
But okay, maybe for some reason you're hesitant to change net-sysfs.c.
Would it be more convenient to change the broken drivers instead? Yes,
some drivers don't report nor 0, nor -1, but rather random value. For
instance a tap device returns '10', igb '65535', etc.
Michal
From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:19:51 +0200
> So if I were developing brand new application I could say: I'm
> dropping all this workaround code and have it clean and require say
> 3.16 kernel at least.
Then your application wouldn't be usable on %99 of systems for a long
long time.
I don't think this is the right tradeoff at all.
On 13.06.2014 22:03, David Miller wrote:
> From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:19:51 +0200
>
>> So if I were developing brand new application I could say: I'm
>> dropping all this workaround code and have it clean and require say
>> 3.16 kernel at least.
>
> Then your application wouldn't be usable on %99 of systems for a long
> long time.
>
How come? The application is going to be usable for as long as
library/kernel APIs won't change. Or until the time a new regression is
introduced and fix is rejected. Speaking of which - long long time
applications *are* broken now. This patch is combining the good from
both worlds: old applications are fixed, new applications doesn't have
to learn anything new.
> I don't think this is the right tradeoff at all.
>
Neither is keeping things broken.
Michal
From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:32:35 +0200
> On 13.06.2014 22:03, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:19:51 +0200
>>
>>> So if I were developing brand new application I could say: I'm
>>> dropping all this workaround code and have it clean and require say
>>> 3.16 kernel at least.
>>
>> Then your application wouldn't be usable on %99 of systems for a long
>> long time.
>>
>
> How come? The application is going to be usable for as long as
> library/kernel APIs won't change.
Because %99 of users are using a distribution kernel which is definitely
going to be pre-3.16 for years.
On 16.06.2014 10:11, David Miller wrote:
> From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:32:35 +0200
>
>> On 13.06.2014 22:03, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:19:51 +0200
>>>
>>>> So if I were developing brand new application I could say: I'm
>>>> dropping all this workaround code and have it clean and require say
>>>> 3.16 kernel at least.
>>>
>>> Then your application wouldn't be usable on %99 of systems for a long
>>> long time.
>>>
>>
>> How come? The application is going to be usable for as long as
>> library/kernel APIs won't change.
>
> Because %99 of users are using a distribution kernel which is definitely
> going to be pre-3.16 for years.
>
That's why every distribution out there has a mechanism to install
packages of a certain version, or those providing certain symbol,
whatever. Or distributions can then backport some kernel patches or
something. But, that's completely unrelated to the problem I'm fixing
here. I don't think this bikeshedding is useful for anything, sorry.
Michal
From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:30:27 +0200
> On 16.06.2014 10:11, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
>> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:32:35 +0200
>>
>>> On 13.06.2014 22:03, David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
>>>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:19:51 +0200
>>>>
>>>>> So if I were developing brand new application I could say: I'm
>>>>> dropping all this workaround code and have it clean and require say
>>>>> 3.16 kernel at least.
>>>>
>>>> Then your application wouldn't be usable on %99 of systems for a long
>>>> long time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How come? The application is going to be usable for as long as
>>> library/kernel APIs won't change.
>>
>> Because %99 of users are using a distribution kernel which is
>> definitely
>> going to be pre-3.16 for years.
>>
>
> That's why every distribution out there has a mechanism to install
> packages of a certain version, or those providing certain symbol,
> whatever. Or distributions can then backport some kernel patches or
> something. But, that's completely unrelated to the problem I'm fixing
> here. I don't think this bikeshedding is useful for anything, sorry.
You're being entirely impractical.
By restricting an application to a kernel version or behavior "via
backported patches" which doesn't even exist yet, you are foolishly
restricting your userbase.
People just cope with what the current kernels support, when possible,
and that's the right thing to do because we cannot break it on them
exactly because people can depend upon the behavior.
NOBODY is checking for -EINVAL returns when reading the link speed
sysfs file, and therefore by signalling it you will break
applications.
So I will not apply a patch which adds that new behavior, sorry.
I am not willing to discuss this further, this is fundamental and
simple as far as I'm concerned.
On 16.06.2014 10:44, David Miller wrote:
> From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:30:27 +0200
>
>> On 16.06.2014 10:11, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:32:35 +0200
>>>
>>>> On 13.06.2014 22:03, David Miller wrote:
>>>>> From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:19:51 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>>> So if I were developing brand new application I could say: I'm
>>>>>> dropping all this workaround code and have it clean and require say
>>>>>> 3.16 kernel at least.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then your application wouldn't be usable on %99 of systems for a long
>>>>> long time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How come? The application is going to be usable for as long as
>>>> library/kernel APIs won't change.
>>>
>>> Because %99 of users are using a distribution kernel which is
>>> definitely
>>> going to be pre-3.16 for years.
>>>
>>
>> That's why every distribution out there has a mechanism to install
>> packages of a certain version, or those providing certain symbol,
>> whatever. Or distributions can then backport some kernel patches or
>> something. But, that's completely unrelated to the problem I'm fixing
>> here. I don't think this bikeshedding is useful for anything, sorry.
>
> You're being entirely impractical.
>
> By restricting an application to a kernel version or behavior "via
> backported patches" which doesn't even exist yet, you are foolishly
> restricting your userbase.
So? Users still have choice of not using my application. I'm okay with that.
>
> People just cope with what the current kernels support, when possible,
> and that's the right thing to do because we cannot break it on them
> exactly because people can depend upon the behavior.
Once again, we are not breaking anything. Current applications continue
to work. I don't understand why you keep writing the opposite over and
over again.
>
> NOBODY is checking for -EINVAL returns when reading the link speed
> sysfs file, and therefore by signalling it you will break
> applications.
That's very interesting thing to say, since even now one can experience
EINVAL:
# cat /sys/class/net/wlan0/speed
cat: /sys/class/net/wlan0/speed: Invalid argument
How do you know for sure that NOBODY is checking -EINVAL?
For example libvirt does check EINVAL:
http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=blob;f=src/util/virnetdev.c;h=a551f9820b97aac41bbcb19c84d102c0ec3bd0aa;hb=HEAD#l1891
How can a kernel developer state that NOBODY isn't using possible kernel
API anyway?
>
> So I will not apply a patch which adds that new behavior, sorry.
That's okay.
>
> I am not willing to discuss this further, this is fundamental and
> simple as far as I'm concerned.
>
Sure it is. That's why I'm surprised we even need to have this discussion.
Michal
Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:44:30AM CEST, [email protected] wrote:
>From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
>Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:30:27 +0200
>
>> On 16.06.2014 10:11, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:32:35 +0200
>>>
>>>> On 13.06.2014 22:03, David Miller wrote:
>>>>> From: Michal Privoznik <[email protected]>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:19:51 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>>> So if I were developing brand new application I could say: I'm
>>>>>> dropping all this workaround code and have it clean and require say
>>>>>> 3.16 kernel at least.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then your application wouldn't be usable on %99 of systems for a long
>>>>> long time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How come? The application is going to be usable for as long as
>>>> library/kernel APIs won't change.
>>>
>>> Because %99 of users are using a distribution kernel which is
>>> definitely
>>> going to be pre-3.16 for years.
>>>
>>
>> That's why every distribution out there has a mechanism to install
>> packages of a certain version, or those providing certain symbol,
>> whatever. Or distributions can then backport some kernel patches or
>> something. But, that's completely unrelated to the problem I'm fixing
>> here. I don't think this bikeshedding is useful for anything, sorry.
>
>You're being entirely impractical.
>
>By restricting an application to a kernel version or behavior "via
>backported patches" which doesn't even exist yet, you are foolishly
>restricting your userbase.
>
>People just cope with what the current kernels support, when possible,
>and that's the right thing to do because we cannot break it on them
>exactly because people can depend upon the behavior.
>
>NOBODY is checking for -EINVAL returns when reading the link speed
>sysfs file, and therefore by signalling it you will break
>applications.
>
>So I will not apply a patch which adds that new behavior, sorry.
>
>I am not willing to discuss this further, this is fundamental and
>simple as far as I'm concerned.
>
Let's just hope we do not introduce some other, more serious bug
somewhere else in user api. I see that such things are unfixable :/