netdev - Re: [PATCH] natsemi: make cable length magic configurable

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]

Date:	Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:08:54 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>,
	Olaf Kirch <okir@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] natsemi: make cable length magic configurable

On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 14:26 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
[...]
> > You would need to:
> > 1. Number the flags starting from 0.  Well, that was easy.
> > 2. Implement {get,set}_priv_flags() operations to access all flags as
> >    a bitmask.
> > 3. Expose the flag names as string set ETH_SS_PRIV_FLAGS accessed by
> >    get_sset_count() and get_strings() operations.
> 
> I was looking for an example, but there doesn't seem to be any driver
> implementing private flags at the moment?

No.

> I am also unsure if a private flag is a suitable solution to the problem
> at hand. I am a little worried about the timing, as the non-default
> value can't be set before the network device is available, I'm afraid
> the network initialization scripts may kick in before one has a chance
> to set the flag with ethtool. I suppose this could be problematic, but
> then again I don't know much about network device drivers, I don't even
> know for sure when method .ndo_open is called...

It's called when the interface is brought up (ifconfig up, ip link set
up, start NetworkManager...).  Some distributions provide a
configuration option(s) to run ethtool while bringing an interface up.

> Furthermore I don't quite get why we can't just go with the module
> parameter. As I understand it, this is a crappy driver for crappy, rare
> hardware. The driver already has a module parameter to work around a
> hardware bug (dspcfg_workaround), I don't quite see why adding a second
> one would be a problem. At least it is consistent.

David can be quite insistent about finding an alternative to module
parameters.

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.

--
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