netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

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:   Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:45:47 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jiri@...nulli.us
Cc:     mkubecek@...e.cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink interface

From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:02:19 +0100

> The discussion we had before was about flag bitfield that was there
> *always*. In this case, that is not true. It is either ifindex or
> ifname. Even rtnetlink has ifname as attribute.
> 
> The flags and info_mask is just big mystery. If it is per-command,
> seems natural to have it as attributes.

I think flags and info_mask indeed can be moved out of this struct.

I guess, in this case, I can see your point of view especially if we
allow ethtool operations on non-netdev entities.

So, ok, let's move forward without a base command struct and just
use attributes.

Thanks :)