netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] devlink: Add support to set port function as trusted

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211216082818.1fb2dff4@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 08:28:18 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Sunil Sudhakar Rani <sunrani@...dia.com>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Bodong Wang <bodong@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] devlink: Add support to set port function
 as trusted

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 16:17:29 +0000 Sunil Sudhakar Rani wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 22:15:10 +0000 Saeed Mahameed wrote:  
> > > We will have a parameter per feature we want to enable/disable instead
> > > of a global "trust" knob.  
> > 
> > So you're just asking me if I'm okay with devlink params regardless if I'm okay
> > with what they control? Not really, I prefer an API as created by this patches.  
>
> What shortcomings do you see in the finer granular approach we want
> to go to enable/disable On a per feature basis instead of global knob?

I was replying to Saeed so I assumed some context which you probably
lack. Granular approach is indeed better, what I was referring to when
I said "prefer an API as created by this patch" was having an dedicated
devlink op, instead of the use of devlink params.