linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH v18 0/3] userspace MHI client interface 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]

Message-ID: <20210202201008.274209f9@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Feb 2021 20:10:08 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jhugo@...eaurora.org, bbhatt@...eaurora.org,
        loic.poulain@...aro.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v18 0/3] userspace MHI client interface driver

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 09:52:08 +0530 Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > I don't see the connection here, sorry.
> > 
> > For instance USB_NET_CDC_MBIM driver creates the /dev/cdc-wdmX chardev node for
> > configuring the modems which supports MBIM protocol over USB. Like that, this
> > driver creates /dev/mhiX_MBIM chardev node for configuring the modem over MHI
> > bus instead of USB. The question arised why we are creating a chardev node for
> > each supported configuration (channels in the case of MHI) and why can't we use
> > the existing /dev/cdc-wdmZ interfaces? The anwser is there is no standard
> > subsystem for WWAN and all the drivers represent a chardev which gets used by
> > the userspace tools such a Network manager for establishing connection.
> > 
> > And /dev/cdc-wdmX is restricted to the USB CDC devices.
> > 
> > Hope this clarifies!
> 
> Jakub, Dave, Adding you both to get your reviews on this series. I've
> provided an explanation above and in the previous iteration [1].

Let's be clear what the review would be for. Yet another QMI chardev 
or the "UCI" direct generic user space to firmware pipe?