netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via ethtool

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: <20171116154212.GE7627@lunn.ch>
Date:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:42:12 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc:     Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Gal Pressman <galp@...lanox.com>,
        Ariel Almog <ariela@...lanox.com>,
        Inbar Karmy <inbark@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/2] Configuring PFC stall prevention via
 ethtool

> I don't like adding another ethtool_ops callback tightly tied to the
> structures passed via ioctl() but when I started to think what to
> suggest as an alternative, I started to wonder if it is really necessary
> to add a new ethtool command at all. Couldn't this be handled as
> a tunable?

I agree with Michal here.

And as he pointed out, there does not need to be a 1:1 mapping between
ethtool(1) and the kAPI. I suggest extending the existing -a option,
and have it make two system calls if needed.

    Andrew