netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event handling code to use the failover framework

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: <20180423100406.71b95f74@xeon-e3>
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:04:06 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>, mst@...hat.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, kubakici@...pl, jasowang@...hat.com,
        loseweigh@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 net-next 4/4] netvsc: refactor notifier/event
 handling code to use the failover framework

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 18:00:58 +0200
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:

> Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 05:28:02PM CEST, stephen@...workplumber.org wrote:
> >On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:42:04 -0700
> >Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> Use the registration/notification framework supported by the generic
> >> failover infrastructure.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>  
> >
> >Do what you want to other devices but leave netvsc alone.
> >Adding these failover ops does not reduce the code size, and really is
> >no benefit.  The netvsc device driver needs to be backported to several
> >other distributions and doing this makes that harder.  
> 
> We should not care about the backport burden when we are trying to make
> things right. And things are not right. The current netvsc approach is
> just plain wrong shortcut. It should have been done in a generic way
> from the very beginning. We are just trying to fix this situation.
> 
> Moreover, I believe that part of the fix is to convert netvsc to 3
> netdev solution too. 2 netdev model is wrong.
> 
> 
> >
> >I will NAK patches to change to common code for netvsc especially the
> >three device model.  MS worked hard with distro vendors to support transparent
> >mode, ans we really can't have a new model; or do backport.
> >
> >Plus, DPDK is now dependent on existing model.  
> 
> Sorry, but nobody here cares about dpdk or other similar oddities.

The network device model is a userspace API, and DPDK is a userspace application.
You can't go breaking userspace even if you don't like the application.