netdev - Re: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for ethtool application.

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: <CAHXqBF+9iP6tOmtiaXopGvLyBZvpXmLz05aHj1MrQ2RnAiGGLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Sep 2011 23:22:16 +0200
From:	Michał Mirosław <mirqus@...il.com>
To:	"Wyborny, Carolyn" <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"bhutchings@...arflare.com" <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for ethtool application.

W dniu 2 września 2011 23:17 użytkownik Michał Mirosław
<mirqus@...il.com> napisał:
> 2011/9/2 Wyborny, Carolyn <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>:
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
>>>Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 1:55 PM
>>>To: Wyborny, Carolyn
>>>Cc: bhutchings@...arflare.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org
>>>Subject: Re: [RFC, 1/2] ethtool: Implement private flags interface for
>>>ethtool application.
>>>
>>>From: Carolyn Wyborny <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>
>>>Date: Fri,  2 Sep 2011 13:50:30 -0700
>>>
>>>> This patch completes the user space implementation of the private
>>>> flags inteface in ethtool. Using -b/-B options.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Carolyn Wyborny <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>
>>>
>>>The only use case you show here is something generic which other
>>>chips have, Energy Efficient Ethernet.
>>>
>>>Making an attribute private which is present widely amonst various
>>>networking chips makes no sense at all.
>>>
>>>It deserved a generic ethtool flag.
>>
>> Fair enough on this particular feature, but does that negate the implementation suggestion altogether?  I can send an updated feature implementation for the use case using DMA Coalescing if that will help.
> I would rather see this as an extension to ETHTOOL_[GS]FEATURES. Its
> semantics allow easy expanding to handle device-private flags without
> changing anything on userspace side.

BTW, After pending Intel drivers get converted to ndo_set_features and
netdev->features get extended to 64 bits, it would also be possible to
use some of the unused bits there for device/driver-private flags
almost "for free".

Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław
--
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