netdev - Re: the future of ethtool

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:25:53 -0500
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...radead.org>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: the future of ethtool

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:10:30AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I would expect to treat each operation in a multiple-set as conditional
> on the success of all previous operations.  ethtool or other utilities
> should then take care to put operations in a sensible order (e.g. enable
> TX checksum before TSO, if those remain separate operations).  Error
> reporting in the core is then as simple as reporting how many operations
> were successful plus the error code for the one that failed.

This is already not that trivial with current netlink limitations.
We are pretty much limited to a single int when returning error
states. One more reason to rethink current netlink error semantics.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html