linux-kernel - Re: Univeral Protocol Driver (using UNDI) in Linux

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]

Message-ID: <44D76F26.9@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 07 Aug 2006 09:49:42 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Daniel Rodrick <daniel.rodrick@...il.com>
CC:	Linux Newbie <linux-newbie@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernelnewbies <kernelnewbies@...linux.org>,
	linux-net@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Univeral Protocol Driver (using UNDI) in Linux

Daniel Rodrick wrote:
> 
> Agreed. But still having a single driver for all the NICs would be
> simply GREAT for my setup, in which all the PCs will be booted using
> PXE only. So apart from performance / relilability issues, what are
> the technical roadblocks in this?
> 
> I'm sure having a single driver for all the NICs is a feature cool
> enough to die for. Yes, it might have drawbacks like just pointed out
> by Peter, but surely a "single driver for all NIC" feature could prove
> to be great in some systems.
> 

Assuming it works, which is questionable in my opinion.

> But since it does not already exist in the kernel, there must be some
> technical feasibility isse. Any ideas on this?

No, that's not the reason.  The Intel code was ugly, and the limitations 
made other people not want to spend any time hacking on it.

	-hpa

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/