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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACKFLikzsgkTf0dfVCWHVWek5MGqZt84b8zffXCg8j87RzAHyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Dec 2018 23:08:37 -0800
From:   Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@...adcom.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, mkubecek@...e.cz,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 RFC 0/8] devlink: Add configuration parameters
 support for devlink_port

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:02 PM Jakub Kicinski
<jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

I believe I have replied to all your emails on this topic.  We just
have a difference in opinion.

Anyway, I have asked Vasundhara to quote your comments and to quote
mine in the cover letter.

Thanks.