netdev - Re: [RFC] hv_netvsc: automatically name slave VF network device

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:   Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:32:34 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] hv_netvsc: automatically name slave VF network device

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:35:37 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Rename the VF device to ethX_vf based on the ethX as the
> synthetic device.  This eliminates the need for delay on setup,
> and the PCI (udev based) naming is not reproducible on Hyper-V
> anyway. The name of the VF does not matter since all control
> operations take place the primary device. It does make the
> user experience better to associate the names.
> 
> Based on feedback from all.systems.go talk.
> The downside is that it requires exporting a symbol from netdev
> core which makes it harder to backport.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>

Why do you have to name the devices in the kernel space in the first
place? :/  Why don't upstream the correct change to biosdevname like
hardware vendors do?

Your VF setup is really _not_ special, I don't understand why we are 
OK with ignoring the standard practices.  Real enterprise distroes
are very careful never to break the naming of interfaces and they keep
the naming policy in user space.  Playing tricks in the kernel has every
chance of breaking existing user setups.