netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 RFC 0/8] devlink: Add configuration parameters support for devlink

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: <20181218210219.26bdf82b@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Dec 2018 21:02:19 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, michael.chan@...adcom.com, jiri@...lanox.com,
        mkubecek@...e.cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 RFC 0/8] devlink: Add configuration
 parameters support for devlink_port

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 08:57:21 +0530, Vasundhara Volam wrote:
> This patchset adds support for configuration parameters setting through
> devlink_port.  Each device registers supported configuration parameters
> table.

Since you're not planning to address my comments, could you please quote
what I said explicite to the cover letter (quoting the last message):

As explained previously I think it's a very bad idea to add existing
configuration options to devlink, just because devlink has the ability
to persist the setting in NVM.  Especially that for WoL you have to get
the link up so you potentially have all link config stuff as well.  And
that n-tuple filters are one of the WoL options, meaning we'd need the
ability to persist n-tuple filters via devlink.

The effort would be far better spent helping with migrating ethtool to
netlink, and allowing persisting there.

I have not heard any reason why devlink is a better fit.  I can imagine
you're just doing it here because it's less effort for you since
ethtool is not yet migrated.

And include something resembling a reason why you're deciding to
ignore it?

Thank you.