netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: dsa: make "label" property optional for dsa2

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:   Mon, 09 Jan 2017 10:45:33 -0500
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@...ine-koenig.org>,
        Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: dsa: make "label" property optional for dsa2

Hi Jiri,

Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> writes:

>>Extra question: shouldn't phys_port_{id,name} be switchdev attributes in
>
> Again, phys_port_id has nothing to do with switches. Should be removed
> from dsa because its use there is incorrect.

Florian, since 3a543ef just got in, can it be reverted?

>>> I guess that it should be enough for you to implement
>>> ndo_get_phys_port_name.
>>
>>Well, if this name must be unique on a system, it's not likely to happen
>>until we agree that we use an ugly tXsYpZ template where X is a tree ID,
>>or we assign system-wide unique IDs to switches, which requires a bit of
>>changes.
>
> No. That should be unique within one switch. In mlxsw we name it "p1",
> "p2", ...
>
> The final netdev names are:
> enp3s0np1, enp3s0np2, ...

OK perfect then, "p%d" sounds good. You seems to avoid "p0" in mlxsw, is
there a reason for that?

>>But again, this is not related to this patch ;-)
>
> It is! You are using phys_port_id, which is completely wrong. You should
> not use it.

I can resend this patch without the udev examples in the commit message
if that can be less confusing.

Thanks,

        Vivien