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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 19:41:59 +0000 From: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Kalesh A P <kalesh-anakkur.purayil@...adcom.com> CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "jiri@...dia.com" <jiri@...dia.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "edwin.peer@...adcom.com" <edwin.peer@...adcom.com>, "michael.chan@...adcom.com" <michael.chan@...adcom.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] devlink enhancements On 8/2/2021 9:36 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 09:57:38 +0530 Kalesh A P wrote: >> From: Kalesh AP <kalesh-anakkur.purayil@...adcom.com> >> >> This patchset adds device capability reporting to devlink info API. >> It may be useful if we expose the device capabilities to the user >> through devlink info API. > > Did you see the RFC Jake posted? That's way more palatable. > FWIW, my patch is more in regards to making sure that users, tools, or scripts, have a way to tell if a given devlink interface is supported. This seems like a way to indicate specific device features? > Operationally the API provided here is of little to no value > to the user, and since it extends the "let the vendors dump custom > meaningless strings" paradigm present in devlink please expect > major push back. > Right. the better approach here is to ensure that whatever user-facing impact of these features is exposed through a standard interface. If one doesn't exist for the capability, you will need to do work to create such an interface. If there's no user impact (and thus no need for a separate interface), then why does a user need to know the capability? Thanks, Jake
Powered by blists - more mailing lists