linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

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]

Message-ID: <20171212235655.qkfahkmeorazwlx6@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:56:55 +0100
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     jiri@...nulli.us, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:45:47PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:02:19 +0100
> 
> > The discussion we had before was about flag bitfield that was there
> > *always*. In this case, that is not true. It is either ifindex or
> > ifname. Even rtnetlink has ifname as attribute.
> > 
> > The flags and info_mask is just big mystery. If it is per-command,
> > seems natural to have it as attributes.
> 
> I think flags and info_mask indeed can be moved out of this struct.
> 
> I guess, in this case, I can see your point of view especially if we
> allow ethtool operations on non-netdev entities.
> 
> So, ok, let's move forward without a base command struct and just
> use attributes.

OK, I'll rework the interface to use attributes for all data.

Michal Kubecek