linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Add Fieldbus subsystem + support HMS Profinet card

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: <c1831703-a476-8870-0a5f-9060bda0f669@metux.net>
Date:   Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:49:35 +0200
From:   "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
To:     Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, mark.rutland@....com,
        Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        treding@...dia.com, David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        noralf@...nnes.org, johan@...nel.org,
        Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, michal.vokac@...ft.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, john.garry@...wei.com,
        geert+renesas@...der.be, robin.murphy@....com,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        sebastien.bourdelin@...oirfairelinux.com, icenowy@...c.io,
        Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@...il.com>,
        "J. Kiszka" <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>, maxime.ripard@...tlin.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/7] Add Fieldbus subsystem + support HMS Profinet
 card

On 15.04.19 20:31, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:

Hi,

>> Maybe it would be better calling it "IEC-61158" instead of "fieldbus" ?>>> > Yes, we are certainly open to that, if it is more correct and/or
better> accepted by users.
Thanks, I'd really appreciate that :)

Maybe I'm a bit beaurocratic here, but I really believe that precise
naming is important, eg. for avoiding potential conflicts w/ different
fieldbus classes (eg. mvb) that might come in the future.

> Yes. You can open as many handles to the device as you like,
> they will all share the fieldbus memory. When the remote
> fieldbus memory changes, that event will be broadcast to
> all open handles, via poll/select.

Great. When I read your first mail, I got reminded on the old legacy
canbus chardevs (before cansocket came in) that was single-user only.

By the way: any special reason for doing this via device instead of
socket (like we have w/ can) ?

I'm, personally, pretty undecided which way is better. Device nodes give
us easy access control via fs permissions, while socket allows
firewalling.


--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287