linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] net: introduce Qualcomm IPA driver

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]

Date:   Wed, 19 Jun 2019 20:25:11 -0500
From:   Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>
To:     Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>, abhishek.esse@...il.com,
        Ben Chan <benchan@...gle.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        cpratapa@...eaurora.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Caruso <ejcaruso@...gle.com>, evgreen@...omium.org,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-soc@...r.kernel.org, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        syadagir@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/17] net: introduce Qualcomm IPA driver

On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 12:47 -0600, Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan
wrote:
> > > There is a n:1 relationship between rmnet and IPA.
> > > rmnet does the de-muxing to multiple netdevs based on the mux id
> > > in the MAP header for RX packets and vice versa.
> > 
> > Oh, so you mean that even though IPA supports multiple channels
> > and multiple netdev instances for a physical device, all the
> > rmnet devices end up being thrown into a single channel in IPA?
> > 
> > What are the other channels for in IPA? I understand that there
> > is one channel for commands that is separate, while the others
> > are for network devices, but that seems to make no sense if
> > we only use a single channel for rmnet data.
> > 
> 
> AFAIK, the other channels are for use cases like tethering.
> There is only a single channel which is used for RX
> data which is then de-muxed using rmnet.

That seems odd, since tethering is no different than any other data
channel in QMI, just that it may have a different APN and QoS
guarantees.

Dan