netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] igc: Export LEDs

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

Message-ID: <3dbe3a7869dd7021f71467a53b6ac7f4@walle.cc>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jul 2021 21:42:05 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        davem@...emloft.net, dvorax.fuxbrumer@...ux.intel.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
        jacek.anaszewski@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, kurt@...utronix.de,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pavel@....cz,
        sasha.neftin@...el.com, vinicius.gomes@...el.com,
        vitaly.lifshits@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] igc: Export LEDs

Am 2021-07-27 18:32, schrieb Marek Behún:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:53:58 +0200
> Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc> wrote:
> 
>> > If we used the devicename as you are suggesting, then for the two LEDs
>> > the devicename part would be the same:
>> >   ledA -> macA -> ethernet0
>> >   ledB -> phyB -> ethernet0
>> > although they are clearly on different MACs.
>> 
>> Why is that the case? Why can't both the MAC and the PHY request a
>> unique name from the same namespace?
> 
> So all the network related devices should request a unique network
> relate device ID?  Should also wireless PHY devices do this? WWAN 
> modems?
> And all these should have the same template for devicename part withing
> /sys/class/leds? What should be the template for the devicename, if
> wireless PHYs and WWAN modems could also be part of this? It cannot be
> "ethernet" anymore.

I don't suggest using ethernet for everything. I just questioned
wether the distinction between ethmac and ethphy makes any sense from
a (human) user point of view; if the devicename part is visible to an
user at all.

-michael