linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Simplify mtty driver and mdev core

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: <20190813183449.703b2bf2.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 18:34:49 +0200
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "cjia@...dia.com" <cjia@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Simplify mtty driver and mdev core

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:28:53 +0000
Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> wrote:

> In bigger objective, I wanted to discuss post this cleanup patch, is to expand mdev to have more user friendly device names.

Uh, what is unfriendly about uuids?

> 
> Before we reach there, I should include a patch that eliminates storing UUID itself in the mdev_device.

I do not think that's a great idea. A uuid is, well, a unique
identifier. What's so bad about it that it should be eliminated?

> 
> > Also, let's not
> > overstate what this particular API callback provides, it's simply access to the
> > uuid of the device, which is a fundamental property of a mediated device.  
> This fundamental property is available in form of device name already.

Let me reiterate that the device name is a string containing a
formatted uuid, not a uuid.

> 
> > API was added simply to provide data abstraction, allowing the struct
> > mdev_device to be opaque to vendor drivers.  Thanks,
> >   
> I get that part. I prefer to remove the UUID itself from the structure and therefore removing this API makes lot more sense?

What I don't get is why you want to eliminate the uuid in the first
place? Again, what's so bad about it?