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: <20180423172550.GF3585@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 19:25:50 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
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

Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:04:06PM CEST, stephen@...workplumber.org wrote:
>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.

I don't understand how you can break anything by exposing
just-another-netdevice. If you break it, it is already broken...

And how you can break anything in userspace by doing refactoring inside
the kernel is puzzling me even more...