netdev - Re: [PATCH ethtool] ethtool: Add support for WAKE

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:   Fri, 03 Aug 2018 12:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     f.fainelli@...il.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linville@...driver.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool] ethtool: Add support for WAKE_FILTER

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 10:57:13 -0700

> Does the current approach of specifying a bitmask of filters looks
> reasonable to you though?

So, in order to answer that, I need some clarification.

The mask, as I see it, is a bit map of 48 possible positions
(SOPASS_MAX * bits_per_byte).  How do these bits map to individual
rxnfc entries?

Are they locations?  If so, how are special locations handled?

What about "special" locations, where the driver and/or hardware
are supposed to decide the location based upon the "special" type
used?

If you considered the following, and you explained why it won't
work, I apologize.  But I'm wondering why you just don't find
some way to specify this as a boolean of the flow spec in the
rxnfc request or similar?

That, at least semantically, seems to avoids several issues.  And it
is unambiguous what flow rule the wake filter boolean applies to.

Right?