netdev - Re: [RFC] bonding driver terminology change proposal

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:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 23:06:55 -0400
From:   Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] bonding driver terminology change proposal

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 9:00 PM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 00:00:16 +0200
>
> > Could we, please, avoid breaking existing userspace tools and scripts?
>
> I will not let UAPI breakage, don't worry.

Seeking some clarification here. Does the output of
/proc/net/bonding/<bond> fall under that umbrella as well? I'm sure
there are people that do parse it for monitoring, and thus I assume
that it does, but want to be certain. I think this is the only
remaining thing I need to address in a local test conversion build.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@...hat.com