netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] ldmvsw: add vio version and remote-mac to ethtool info

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:   Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:27:40 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     shannon.nelson@...cle.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] ldmvsw: add vio version and remote-mac to
 ethtool info

From: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@...cle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:59:35 -0700

> On 6/21/2017 12:05 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> Also, this is not at all an appropriate place to expose this.  The
>> "driver info" ethtool command is not a place to post per-connection
>> or per-link information.
> 
> I knew it was a bit of a stretch, but almost made sense.  However, I'd
> still like to put the vio version here - is that acceptable?

That part is fine.

>> Probably one of the IFLA_* netlink attributes would work best for
>> this.  You could even use PHYS_PORT_ID for this, which gives you
>> 32 bytes to work with.
> 
> Hmmm - good thought.  I'll go poke at this and see what I can come up
> with.  I gather from this that you agree that /sys is not the right
> place for this information, either.

Netlink is definitely preferred.