netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] sfc: expose CTPIO stats on NICs that support them

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, 20 Dec 2017 11:29:32 +0000
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC:     <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] sfc: expose CTPIO stats on NICs that support
 them

On 19/12/17 20:42, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 12:20:36 -0800
>
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:06:36 +0000, Edward Cree wrote:
>>> From: Bert Kenward <bkenward@...arflare.com>
>>>
>>> While the Linux driver doesn't use CTPIO ('cut-through programmed I/O'),
>>>  other drivers on the same port might, so if we're responsible for
>>>  reporting per-port stats we need to include the CTPIO stats.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
>> FWIW this is missing a sign-off from Bert.
> Edward, please fix this and resubmit.
FWIW, our practice hitherto at Solarflare for patches written internally
 has been to apply the SOB at the point of upstream submission; the
 submitter is the person certifying (on behalf of the company) that the
 patch is offered under a suitable license.
The motion of the patch within the company is not tracked with SOBs since —
 as works-for-hire — the copyrights are all owned by the company rather
 than the patch author.
If this is a problem we can start gathering SOBs from the authors for the
 submission; but as I understand the DCoO that should not be necessary, and
 it hasn't been considered a problem until recently.
Please advise on how we should handle this in future.

-Ed