netdev - Re: [patch net-next 01/20] net: sched: add block bind/unbind notif. and extended block

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171019131357.GB1978@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:13:57 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, ganeshgr@...lsio.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        matanb@...lanox.com, leonro@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        simon.horman@...ronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@...ronome.com,
        john.hurley@...ronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 01/20] net: sched: add block bind/unbind notif.
 and extended block_get/put

Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:23:11PM CEST, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 22:05:56 +0200
>
>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>> 
>> Introduce new type of ndo_setup_tc message to propage binding/unbinding
>> of a block to driver. Call this ndo whenever qdisc gets/puts a block.
>> Alongside with this, there's need to propagate binder type from qdisc
>> code down to the notifier. So introduce extended variants of
>> block_get/put in order to pass this info.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/netdevice.h |  1 +
>>  include/net/pkt_cls.h     | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  net/sched/cls_api.c       | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>  3 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> index 31bb301..062a4f5 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> @@ -771,6 +771,7 @@ typedef u16 (*select_queue_fallback_t)(struct net_device *dev,
>>  
>>  enum tc_setup_type {
>>  	TC_SETUP_MQPRIO,
>> +	TC_SETUP_BLOCK,
>>  	TC_SETUP_CLSU32,
>>  	TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER,
>>  	TC_SETUP_CLSMATCHALL,
>
>Like David I think you should add this to the end of the list.
>
>If you don't "think" about backporting issues when doing upstream
>work, you're not "think"ing about some of the people who end up using
>your code.

Okay, I don't mind much putting this at the end. I did a lot of
backports in my life, things like this are the easiest to handle, that's
why I don't believe we should consider it. :)

There are much more problematic things during backport, like changes of
parameters of exported functions or adding fields to structs.
That we correctly don't care about upstream. Now we care about adding
new enum values to the end? That does not make sense to me, sorry :/

For the clarity, I know why I say "people should not think about
backporting while working on features upstream". I was in position
of adding a feature and doing the backport of it many times. The reason
is simply because people would tend to do non-optimal solution just
because it will be easy to backport and their work would be easier.