netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] staging: fieldbus core: add support for device configuration

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: <CAGngYiXWF-qwTiC95oUQobYRwuruZ6Uu7USwPRqhhyw-mogv7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Oct 2019 11:07:47 -0400
From:   Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Enrico Weigelt <lkml@...ux.net>,
        Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
        "J. Kiszka" <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Frank Iwanitz <friw@...-networks.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] staging: fieldbus core: add support for device configuration

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:09 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Why is a new way of doing configuration needed here?  What does this
> provide that the current code doesn't already do?

The fieldbus core doesn't have a configuration mechanism yet. This
patch adds one.
I deliberately omitted configuration when the core was added - I wanted to keep
complexity to a minimum. I'm sorry I didn't make this clearer.

As a result, the current core can only work with cards that either don't require
any config, or get it straight from the network/PLC. Profinet is a good example
of this. Most cards do require config however. So does the hms flnet card, which
I tried to add in the patchset.

> And have you looked at the recent configfs fixes to make sure this code
> still works with them?  I can't test this so rebasing this on 5.4-rc1
> would be good for you to do first.
>

Thanks for the heads-up! I will test that out.