netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] add ppp_generic ioctl to bridge channels

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: <20201117085230.03209114@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 08:52:30 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Tom Parkin <tparkin@...alix.com>
Cc:     Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        jchapman@...alix.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] add ppp_generic ioctl to bridge channels

On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:54:22 +0000 Tom Parkin wrote:
> > > I think the question is more about long term maintainance. Do we want
> > > to keep PPP related module self contained, with low maintainance code
> > > (the current proposal)? Or are we willing to modernise the
> > > infrastructure, add support and maintain PPP features in other modules
> > > like flower, tunnel_key, etc.?  
> > 
> > Right, it's really not great to see new IOCTLs being added to drivers,
> > but the alternative would require easily 50 times more code.  
> 
> Jakub, could I quickly poll you on your current gut-feel level of
> opposition to the ioctl-based approach?
> 
> Guillaume has given good feedback on the RFC code which I can work
> into an actual patch submission, but I don't really want to if you're
> totally opposed to the whole idea :-)

I'll merge it if no one else speaks up in opposition.