netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] ethtool: Introduce max power support

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: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 17:18:25 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
 <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 <idosch@...dia.com>, <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
 <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] ethtool: Introduce max power support

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 12:19:57 +0200 Wojciech Drewek wrote:
> You're saying that if min_pwr_allowed or max_pwr_allowed taken from get op
> are 0 than we should not allow to set max_pwr_reset and max_pwr_set?

Yes, return -EOPNOTSUPP and point extack at whatever max_pwr attr user
sent. If driver doesn't return any bounds from get() it must not support
the configuration.

> And similarly if policy was 0 than we should not allow to set it?

You mean the limit? I'm not as sure about this one. We can either
treat 0 as "unset" or as unsupported. Not sure what makes more sense
for this case.