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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 2 Aug 2021 19:41:59 +0000
From:   "Keller, Jacob E" <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Kalesh A P <>
CC:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
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 <>
>> 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?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists