netdev - Re: [patch net-next 3/9] mlx4: Implement port type setting via devlink interface

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, 24 Feb 2016 08:15:27 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, idosch@...lanox.com,
	eladr@...lanox.com, yotamg@...lanox.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
	yishaih@...lanox.com, dledford@...hat.com, sean.hefty@...el.com,
	hal.rosenstock@...il.com, eugenia@...lanox.com,
	roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
	hadarh@...lanox.com, jhs@...atatu.com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, brouer@...hat.com, ivecera@...hat.com,
	rami.rosen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 3/9] mlx4: Implement port type setting via
 devlink interface

Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 06:31:39PM CET, stephen@...workplumber.org wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:26:00 +0100
>Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jiri,
>> 
>> On 22.02.2016 19:31, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> > From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>> >
>> > So far, there has been an mlx4-specific sysfs file allowing user to
>> > change port type to either Ethernet of InfiniBand. This is very
>> > inconvenient.
>> 
>> Again, I want to express my concerns regarding all of this until this 
>> will be integrated into udev/systemd for stable device names. While one 
>> can build wrapper code around devlink to have stable devlink ports, I 
>> don't see a reason to include kernel code which actually has more 
>> problems than the sysfs approach. This harms admins to use those devices 
>> and will additionally require user space to write boiler plate code.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Hannes
>> 
>
>I appreciate that you need to have a lighterweight model for
>network devices. But have to agree with Hannes.

No, I don't need to have lighterweight model for network device. This
patch does nothing like that.


>
>This code breaks the model expected by applications like Quagga, SNMP
>and lots of other legacy code. Is this really going to work with the
>legacy Linux model.

No, this patch does not break anything. The original netdev still stay.