linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 06/22] thunderbolt: Add support for lane bonding

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: <20191002143020.GG2819@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:30:20 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Anthony Wong <anthony.wong@...onical.com>,
        Mario.Limonciello@...l.com,
        Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
        Yehezkel Bernat <YehezkelShB@...il.com>,
        Michael Jamet <michael.jamet@...el.com>,
        Rajmohan Mani <rajmohan.mani@...el.com>,
        Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@...look.com.au>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/22] thunderbolt: Add support for lane bonding

On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:21:06PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 01.10.2019, 15:53 +0300 schrieb Mika Westerberg:
> > > 
> > > Are we only going to be allowed to "bond" two links together?  Or will
> > > we be doing more than 2 in the future?  If more, then we might want to
> > > think of a different way to specify these...
> > 
> > AFAICT only two lanes are available in USB4. This goes over USB type-C
> > using the two lanes there.
> > 
> > Of course I don't know if in future there will be USB4 1.1 or something
> > that adds more lanes so if you think there is a better way to specify
> > these, I'm happy to implement that instead :) 
> 
> If this ever can become asymmetric this interface is going to turn
> around and bite.

Don't think it can be asymmetric but I'm open to all ideas how to make
it more flexible :-)