netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] rtnetlink: Add new RTM_GETEECSTATE 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YUrLjGJwMc/UpqOK@shredder>
Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 09:22:04 +0300
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
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>,
        "richardcochran@...il.com" <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        "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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] rtnetlink: Add new RTM_GETEECSTATE message
 to get SyncE status

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:14:45PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:58:05 +0300 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > > The only source type above is 'port' with the ability to set the
> > > > relevant port, but more can be added. Obviously, 'devlink clock show'
> > > > will give you the current source in addition to other information such
> > > > as frequency difference with respect to the input frequency.  
> > > 
> > > We considered devlink interface for configuring the clock/DPLL, but a
> > > new concept was born at the list to add a DPLL subsystem that will
> > > cover more use cases, like a TimeCard.  
> > 
> > The reason I suggested devlink is that it is suited for device-wide
> > configuration and it is already used by both MAC drivers and the
> > TimeCard driver. If we have a good reason to create a new generic
> > netlink family for this stuff, then OK.
> 
> For NICs mapping between devlink instances and HW is not clear.
> Most register devlink per PCI dev which usually maps to a Eth port.
> So if we have one DPLL on a 2 port NIC mapping will get icky, no?

Yes, having to represent the same EEC in multiple devlink instances is
not nice.

> 
> Is the motivation to save the boilerplate code associated with new
> genetlink family or something more? 

I don't mind either way. I simply wanted to understand the motivation
for not using any existing framework. The above argument is convincing
enough, IMO.