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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 08:50:49 -0700 From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> To: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>, David Miller <davem@...hat.com>, Jakub Jelinek <jj@...ra.linux.cz>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>, Tim Hockin <thockin@....com>, Eli Kupermann <eli.kupermann@...el.com>, Chris Leech <christopher.leech@...el.com>, Scott Feldman <scott.feldman@...el.com>, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] ethtool: Support for driver private ioctl's On 04/05/2018 03:47 AM, Jose Abreu wrote: > Hi All, > > I would like to know your opinion regarding adding support for > driver private ioctl's in ethtool. > > Background: Synopsys Ethernet IP's have a certain number of > features which can be reconfigured at runtime. Giving you two > examples: One of the most recent one is the safety features, > which can be enabled/disabled and forced at runtime. Another one > is a Flexible RX Parser which can route specific packets to > specific RX DMA channels. Given that these are features specific > to our IP's it would not be useful to add an uniform API for this > because the users would only be one or two drivers ... Parsing of packets and directing the matched packets to specific queues/channels can be done through ethtool rxnfc API, tc/cls_flower as well, so you should really check whether those APIs don't already allow you to do what you want. ethtool already supports a concept of private flags, not ioctl() though which allows you to toggle boolean values for instance (or technically up to how many bits a "flag" is used to represent) is that enough or do you need to turn on/off the feature as well as pass configuration parameters? > > This new feature would change the help usage for ethtool so that > each driver private option would be shown, and then each driver > specific file would have a structure with all the available > options. Finally, each driver would have to handle the private > IOCTL's. > > We already have this working locally and now I would like to know > your opinion about upstreaming this ... Do you think this can be > useful for anyone else? Or should we change direction to use, for > example, debugfs/configfs? In general, even if there is only one driver implementing a particular feature, the approach chosen is to come up with an API that is as generic as possible. Even if there is a single user of that API in tree, having something that was thought to be generic is better than allowing uncontrolled private ioctl() implementations. -- Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists