netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] devlink enhancements

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0152a495-9cca-db62-ccdf-be7231215db2@intel.com>
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