netdev - Re: [RFC:] struct net_device_ops: Add function pointer to fill device specific ndisc information

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:	Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:43:32 +0100
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	stephan.gatzka@...il.com
Cc:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC:] struct net_device_ops: Add function pointer to fill
 device specific ndisc information

On Jan 21 Stephan Gatzka wrote:
> 
> >> Full ack. And that's the reason why I feel very uncomfortable with a Yoshifujis hardware address extensions by fifo_addr, spd, and max_rec.
> >>
> >> This seems possible with a single netdevice for IPv4/6 only if we _always_ use the same fifo address for both IPv4 and IPv6. Do we all agree on that?
> >
> > I do not understand what "that" and "this" mean here.
> > Do you want to have different FIFO on single net_device? If yes, for what?
> >
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry for being mixed-up. I meant that your proposal for 
> enhancing the hardware address seems to be a feasible solution, if we 
> _never_ want to have distinct fifo addresses for IPv4 and IPv6. This 
> will be just impossible with a single netdevice.
> 
> But I have to admit that I have no good use case for different fifo 
> addresses...
> 
> So overall, your proposal seems to be a possible solution. Nevertheless, 
> I can't help that I find it a bit awkward to have speed, max_rec and 
> fifo address in the hardware address of the network device. For me, 
> that's just the GUID.
> 
> I want to have an ack from Stefan Richter before I'm going to implement 
> your solution.

Sorry for my delayed response.

I am not a contributor to net/, hence don't have a say over how the
networking APIs should evolve.

Any solution is fine with me, as long as net/ does not use any definitions
or declarations from <linux/firewire.h>.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-===-= ---= ==-==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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