linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] Add multi mport 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080205162942.GB20177@gate.crashing.org>
Date:	Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:29:42 -0600
From:	Matt Porter <mporter@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Zhang Wei <Wei.Zhang@...escale.com>
Cc:	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Add multi mport support.

On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:30:13PM +0800, Zhang Wei wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak@...nel.crashing.org] 
> > when we have multiple ports are the device IDs on the ports intended  
> > to be unique only to a port or unique across all ports?
> > 
> I consider each RIO controller will has its own network, the device IDs
> should be
> unique only in its port network.

This is a bad assumption IMHO. It pushes policy on to the system
designer of a RapidIO network.

It is very possible to use multiple controllers as entry points
in a single RapidIO network fabric space. The reason one would do this
is to provide optimized paths to some endpoints in the system.

If possible, there should never be a policy assumption like this in
kernel space. It's much better to assume that one may or may not
have a unique id space.

-Matt
--
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/