netdev - RE: [RFC net-next 1/2] if_link : add support for VF privileges

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]

Message-ID: <49395329523DD64492581B505F80C86D5BDD08F6DB@EXMAIL.ad.emulex.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:54:31 -0800
From:	<Ajit.Khaparde@...lex.Com>
To:	<bhutchings@...arflare.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	<shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC net-next 1/2] if_link : add support for VF privileges



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@...arflare.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:43 PM
> To: David Miller
> Cc: Khaparde, Ajit; shemminger@...ux-foundation.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/2] if_link : add support for VF privileges
> 
> On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 17:04 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> > From: <Ajit.Khaparde@...lex.Com>
> > Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:02:27 -0800
> >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@...arflare.com]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:25 PM
> > >> To: Khaparde, Ajit
> > >> Cc: davem@...emloft.net; shemminger@...ux-foundation.org;
> > >> netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/2] if_link : add support for VF privileges
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 13:26 -0600, Ajit Khaparde wrote:
> > >> > +enum {
> > >> > +	IFLA_VF_PRIVILEGE_DEFAULT = 1,	/* Default privileges */
> > >>
> > >> What are the default privileges?  Should existing drivers report that
> > >> their VFs have this?
> > > Yes. Vendors can decide what privileges they want to grant for VFs by default.
> >
> > That's terrible and a very bad interface for users.  It means every system
> > can have different defaults, from which we'll derive zero consistency.
> 
> Aside from this, my concern is that if we assign privilege flags to
> capabilities that VFs normally have now then the value reported where
> the driver doesn't support this new operation should not be 0.
 
Agree.
> 
> (Also, if a privilege is assigned by default, is it really a privilege?
> Wouldn't 'capability' or 'permission' be a better term?)

Sure. Anything is fine.
> 
> Ben.
> 
> --
> Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
> Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
> They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.