netdev - Re: [PATCH ethtool,v2] ethtool: add support show/set-time-stamping

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 13:17:41 +0200
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc:     "Kevin(Yudong) Yang" <yyd@...gle.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ethtool,v2] ethtool: add support show/set-time-stamping

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 12:37 PM Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz> wrote:

>
> All this sounds as if the actual reason why you want this in ethtool -
> and implemented using existing ioctl - were to provide a workaround for
> your internal company processes which make it way harder to add a small
> utility than to embed essentially the same code into another which has
> been approved already. I understand that company processes sometimes
> work like that (we have a customer who once asked us to patch kernel for
> something that could be easily achieved by setting one sysctl on boot
> becuse it was easier for them to deploy an updated kernel than to edit
> a config file in their image) but I don't think this is a convincing
> argument for upstream code inclusion.
>

OK, we will carry this internally then.

We are not going to fight against some trivial change.