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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 14 May 2010 11:25:26 -0700
From:	Chris Wright <chrisw@...hat.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	Scott Feldman <scofeldm@...co.com>, 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)

* Patrick McHardy (kaber@...sh.net) wrote:
> 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.

$ git describe --contains ebc08a6f47ee76ecad8e9f26c26e6ec9b46ca659
v2.6.34-rc1~233^2~336

It's not released yet?
--
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