netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 0/3] devconf: New infrastructure for setting pre-load parameters for a module

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 8 Jan 2015 08:46:18 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Hadar Hen Zion <hadarh@...lanox.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
	Yevgeny Petrilin <yevgenyp@...lanox.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>, shannon.nelson@...el.com,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, greearb@...delatech.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/3] devconf: New infrastructure for setting
 pre-load parameters for a module

On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 05:16:57PM +0200, Hadar Hen Zion wrote:
> Hi,
>     
> When configuring a device at an early boot stage, most kernel drivers
> use module parameters (the parameters' settings can be determined in
> modprobe.d config files).

Which is a bad idea, as you have learned :)

> These parameters are difficult to manage, and one of the reasons is that
> module parameters are set per driver and not per device (NICs using the
> same driver cannot be set with different configurations).
> Furthermore, using other existing configuration tools like ethtool,
> ifconfig, ip link commands or sysfs entries is not applicable, since
> they all rely on having a netdev already set up.
> 
> In the past, 'request_firmware' solution for configuration parameters
> was suggested by Shannon Nelson from Intel[1]. The idea was rejected by
> Greg KH, who claimed it was abusive of the request_firmware mechanism.
> Greg suggested using configfs for device configuration instead (as done
> by the USB gadget driver).
> 
> As a solution, we introduce a new kernel infrastructure using configfs
> to allow the configuration of the device. The goal is to set low-level
> device functionality that needs to be sorted out before a module is
> loaded.

Ick, really?  drivers should never need to be configured like this, if
so, then something is wrong, they should "just work" by default.  What
are you needing to "configure" that can't be determined by something
like a device tree?

greg k-h
--
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