linux-kernel - Re: libertas (private) ioctls vs. nl80211

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: <20070617044636.GL11166@waste.org>
Date:	Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:46:36 -0500
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	johannes@...solutions.net, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	dcbw@...hat.com, hs4233@...l.mn-solutions.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, marcelo@...ck.org
Subject: Re: libertas (private) ioctls vs. nl80211

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:08:44PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:56:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:09:36 -0400
> > "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > It does not make sense to me to rip this out purely for aesthetic
> > > reasons.
> > 
> > Aesthetics are good, but that's not the main issue.
> > 
> > What is most worrying is that there appears to be a risk that these
> > newly-added interfaces will later become obsoleted by another interface. 
> > This means that we'll need to maintain, test and support _both_ interfaces
> > for a very long time.  This is the sort of foot-shooting we should avoid.
> 
> True enough.  However, I hope you will agree that we should not
> confuse foresight with speculation.
> 
> At present there is no sign on the horizon of either any mac80211
> mesh code or any other full-MAC wireless driver supporting mesh.
> Without either of those, it would seem imprudent to rush toward
> a gneric configuration interface even if nl80211 was prepared to
> sprout one.

Making it generic may be premature optimization.

But at the very least, we should deal with the three other problems
Christoph has pointed out: subfunctions, pointer indirections, and
32on64 cleanliness.

That last one may come back to bite you in a couple years' time, if not
other people. It's a major pain in the ass.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/