netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 11/18] switchdev: remove old netdev_switch_port_bridge

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:	Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:56:38 -0700
From:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
To:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:	"Arad, Ronen" <ronen.arad@...el.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 11/18] switchdev: remove old netdev_switch_port_bridge_setlink

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> On 03/31/15 22:38, Scott Feldman wrote:
>
>>
>> It sounds like vendor extensions need to be supported someway,
>> someday.
>
>
>
> I agree. This is one of those impendance mismatch things. There are
> scenarios where the feature may not be generic enough. But whatever
> feature it is - eventually we should get it back into mainstream.
> The danger of backdoors that Jiri alludes to is there.
>
>
>> Maybe let's table vendor extensions for the time being and
>> continue our focus on shared infrastructure: the things we know are
>> common for all vendors.  We still have a lot of work just getting the
>> common bits working.  Then we can take additional features one at a
>> time and see if they're shared or vendor-specific.  In the meantime,
>> there are always back doors such as genl for vendor to use; there is
>> nothing preventing that.
>>
>
> And now i disagree. Did you read the back of your netdev tshirt? Quote:
> ---
> I also don't buy the argument that "people can put arbitrary changes
> into their kernel to do stuff like that".
> ---
>
> Vendors can do whatever they want. We just should not be aiding them to
> put proprietary shit. I want to stop coding around SDKs. Help me.

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on...I thought I said the same
thing.  I just want to defer the vendor extension discussion for now
and refocus on common stuff.  Trust me, there is no one on the planet
that wants to stop coding around the SDKs more than myself.

-scott
--
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