linux-kernel - Re: Univeral Protocol Driver (using UNDI) in Linux

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:	Tue, 8 Aug 2006 10:43:13 +0530
From:	"Daniel Rodrick" <daniel.rodrick@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	"Linux Newbie" <linux-newbie@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernelnewbies <kernelnewbies@...linux.org>,
	linux-net@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Univeral Protocol Driver (using UNDI) in Linux

> >
> > I'm sure having a single driver for all the NICs is a feature cool
> > enough to die for. Yes, it might have drawbacks like just pointed out
> > by Peter, but surely a "single driver for all NIC" feature could prove
> > to be great in some systems.
> >
>
> Assuming it works, which is questionable in my opinion.
>
> > But since it does not already exist in the kernel, there must be some
> > technical feasibility isse. Any ideas on this?
>
> No, that's not the reason.  The Intel code was ugly, and the limitations
> made other people not want to spend any time hacking on it.
>

Hi ... so there seem to be no technical feasibily issues, just
reliabliy / ugly design issues? So one can still go ahead and write a
Universal Protocol Driver that can work with all (PXE compatible)
NICs?

Are there any issues related to real mode / protected mode?

Thanks,

Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/