netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 01/12] ethtool: add infrastructure for centralized checking of coalescing parameters

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: <20200304183411.GJ4264@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 19:34:11 +0100
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        thomas.lendacky@....com, benve@...co.com, _govind@....com,
        pkaustub@...co.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
        alexandre.torgue@...com, joabreu@...opsys.com, snelson@...sando.io,
        yisen.zhuang@...wei.com, salil.mehta@...wei.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
        michael.chan@...adcom.com, saeedm@...lanox.com, leon@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 01/12] ethtool: add infrastructure for
 centralized checking of coalescing parameters

On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 06:16:13PM +0000, Edward Cree wrote:
> On 04/03/2020 18:12, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > So one thing I just wanted to point out. The used_types won't necessarily
> > be correct because it is only actually checking for non-zero types. There
> > are some of these values where a zero is a valid input
> Presumably in the netlink ethtool world we'll want to instead check if
> the attribute was passed?

Yes, that's one of the advantages: you can see which attributes
user(space) wants to set instead of guessing by comparing to zero or
current value.

> Not sure but that might affect what semantics we want to imply now.

My understanding is that Alexander's comment was only about the name of
the variable, not the semantics. The test will look different in netlink
implementation as I will also want to pass the information about (first)
offending attribute in extack.

Michal