netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/7] devlink: Add permanent config parameter get/set operations

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: <20171018140103.GD1975@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:01:03 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Steve Lin <steven.lin1@...adcom.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>,
        John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] devlink: Add permanent config parameter get/set
 operations

Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 03:14:35PM CEST, steven.lin1@...adcom.com wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>> Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:39:09PM CEST, steven.lin1@...adcom.com wrote:
>>>On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>>> Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:44:23PM CEST, steven.lin1@...adcom.com wrote:
>>>> Steve. As I originally requested, could you please split this to:
>>>> 1) single patch adding config get/set commands, without any config attributes
>>>> 2) single patch per config attribute - please don't add them in bulk.
>>>>    We also need very strict description for every single attribute so
>>>>    other vendors know what it is and can re-use it. There is need to
>>>>    avoid duplication here. Also, please send just few attribites in the
>>>>    first run, not like 40 you are sending now. Impossible to review.
>>>
>>>I broke the patch set up into functional blocks of attributes, in
>>>order to avoid having ~40 patches of just a couple lines each.  But, I
>>>will split further for each individual attribute, and just submit a
>>>few initially, per your request.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, why didn't you put it into nested attribute we were discussing?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I thought I did :) , using the DPIPE_HEADERS nested attribute as an
>>>example.  I'll reach out to you off-list to understand what I'm
>>>missing.
>>
>> I missed that. But you need a separate attr enum as well.
>>
>
>I did have this as the nested attr enum in the original patch:

No, I mean separate "enum your_new_enum"


>
>        /* Permanent Configuration Parameters */
>        DEVLINK_ATTR_PERM_CFG,                          /* nested */
>
>However, I only used the nested construct in the response from kernel
>to userspace, not in the request from userspace to kernel.  (This was
>based on looking at the various DPIPE_* nested attributes as
>examples.)
>
>Thinking about it after seeing your comment, I'm thinking I should
>also use the nested attribute construct in the original request from
>userspace to kernel as well, although I didn't see any previous
>examples of this in devlink.
>
>So I'll plan to use nesting in that direction as well.
>
>Thanks,
>Steve