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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:05:40 -0600 From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com> To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com> Cc: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>, dledford@...hat.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] IB/hfi1: Remove write() and use ioctl() for user access On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:48:31PM -0400, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:45:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:41:35AM -0700, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > > > This patch series removes the write() interface for user access in favor of an > > > ioctl() based approach. This is in response to the complaint that we had > > > different handlers for write() and writev() doing different things and expecting > > > different types of data. See: > > > > I think we should wait on applying these patches until we globally sort out > > what to do with the rdma uapi. > > > > It just doesn't make alot of sense for drivers to have their own personal > > char devices. :( > > I'm afraid I have to disagree at this time. Someday we may have "1 char device > to rule them all" but right now we don't have any line of sight to that > solution. It may be _years_ before we can agree to the semantics which will > work for all high speed, kernel bypass, rdma, low latency, network devices. There are some pretty obvious paths to make this saner that could only be a few weeks away, we haven't even had the first conversations yet. I think you are completely wrong there is no 'line of sight' It certainly can't be years. There is some rational for a very driver specific thing, but EEPROM and snoop? Seriously? Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists