netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6 V7 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port management (was iovnl)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 14 May 2010 20:09:20 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Scott Feldman <scofeldm@...co.com>
CC:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 V7 PATCH 1/2] Add netlink support for virtual port
 management (was iovnl)

Scott Feldman wrote:
> On 5/14/10 10:29 AM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> 
>> I was thinking that a device could have both IFLA_VF_PORTS and IFLA_PORT_SELF,
>> but you know more about the IOV specifics. If an adapter having multiple
>> VFs always gets configured as VF 0 itself, that would be fine as well,
>> otherwise
>> we could have an extra argument to the two device driver callbacks to
>> differentiate VF/SELF. As long as this does not impact the user ABI, we
>> could do either.
> 
> I think you're right.  I should have said AND/OR.  I would rather not have
> an extra argument to the driver callbacks.
>   
>>> I think we should redo the other IFLA_VF_xxx msgs in the same style.  I'm
>>> not going to tackle that for IFLA_VF_PORTS patch, but it would be a good
>>> followup patch.
>> I fear it's too late for that now. While we have not yet released 2.6.34
>> and 2.6.33 does not contain the broken message, it's extremely late in the
>> stabilization phase of v2.6.34, so I doubt that there is still a chance for
>> that at this point.
> 
> That's too bad.  I wish Patrick's objections were honored and then we
> wouldn't have followed that broken model!  Can the broken msgs be disabled
> somehow for 2.6.34?  Keep the definitions in if_link.h but fail the SET/GET
> actions in rtnetlink.c?

That would be a possibility. Unfortunately I don't think we can fix
this in a backwards compatible way.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html