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

Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:47:58 +0200
From:   Eran Ben Elisha <eranlinuxmellanox@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
        Linux Netdev List <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

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>> 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

Sound good to me. We will follow this suggestion to extend -a using
the tunable op.
In addition, we will come up with new API to use timeouts  and on/off
instead of auto/default.

Eran