netdev - Re: [RFC v2 net-next 1/2] rtnetlink: Add new RTM_GETSYNCESTATE message to get SyncE status

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]

Date:   Tue, 31 Aug 2021 09:19:27 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Machnikowski, Maciej" <maciej.machnikowski@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        "abyagowi@...com" <abyagowi@...com>,
        "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        bsd@...com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 net-next 1/2] rtnetlink: Add new RTM_GETSYNCESTATE
 message to get SyncE status

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 04:29:09PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Hmm, IDK if this really belongs in RTNL. The OCP time card that
> Jonathan works on also wants to report signal lock, and it locks
> to GNSS. It doesn't have any networking functionality whatsoever.
> 
> Can we add a genetlink family for clock info/configuration? From 
> what I understood discussing this with Jonathan it sounded like most
> clocks today have a vendor-specific character device for configuration
> and reading status.
> 
> I'm happy to write the plumbing if this seems like an okay idea 
> but too much work for anyone to commit.

This sounds nice.

As you said later on in this thread, any API we merge now will have to
last.  That is why I'm being so picky here.  We want new APIs to cover
current HW _and_ be reasonable for the future.

I don't see a DPLL as either a PTP Hardware Clock or a Network
Device.  It is a PLL.

The kernel can and should have a way to represent the relationship
between these three different kind of IP block.  We already have a
way to get from PHC to netdev interface.

I understand that Maciej and team want to get support for their card
ASAP.  However, proper kernel/user API takes time.  For example, the
PHC stuff took one year and fourteen revisions.  But it was worth the
wait, because the API has help up pretty well all these years since
the v3.0 kernel.

There is no need to quickly merge some poorly designed interfaces.

Thanks,
Richard