netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/3] switchdev: support stp updates on stacked netdevices

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: <20150315.183005.358448761464513797.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 15 Mar 2015 18:30:05 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	jiri@...nulli.us
Cc:	roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, sfeldma@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/3] switchdev: support stp updates on
 stacked netdevices

From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 17:56:32 +0100

> Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:31:56PM CET, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>>From: roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 06:25:24 -0700
>>
>>> David, if you mean not touch bond and team but have the switchdev
>>> api do it transparently, yes, i had it that way initially.  And i do
>>> liked it that way as well. But the feedback i received (during the
>>> initial introduction of this for setlink/dellink) was to make it
>>> explicit for each master.
>>
>>I think the concern is that we only want to do this for devices
>>for which it is safe to "traverse" down like this.
> 
> Yes, that was my point. Also, some layered drivers might want to do some
> individual magic, propagate on condition, etc. I think it is clearer
> architecture. And also, you can see right away what is happening. By
> doing the travelsal directly in switchdev code, that is in the shadow :/

I think special behavior would be the exception rather than the norm,
and we should code our interfaces for the common case.

This means we can add a per-device flag to avoid this logic if
necessary.

Notice how you use lots of words like "might", and I hate designing
interfaces without hard explicit real word examples of the actual
precise need.

So don't use open ended reasons like that for justifying the design of
our interfaces.
--
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