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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:10:29 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <>
To:     Jiri Pirko <>
Cc:     Parav Pandit <>,
        Sunil Sudhakar Rani <>,
        Saeed Mahameed <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Bodong Wang <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] devlink: Add support to set port function
 as trusted

On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 10:15:49 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> It was implicit that a driver API callback addition for both types of features is not good.
>>> Devlink port function params enables to achieve both generic and device specific features.
>>> Shall we proceed with port function params? What do you think?
>> I already addressed this. I don't like devlink params. They muddy the
>> water between vendor specific gunk and bona fide Linux uAPI. Build a
>> normal dedicated API.
> Well, that is indeed true. But on the other hand, what is the alternative
> solution? There are still going to be things wich are generic and driver-
> specific. Params or no params. Or do you say we need some new well
> defined enum-based api for generic stuff and driver-speficic will just
> go to params?

The latter is where my thinking is right now. I think devlink params
are attracting too much vendor attention, when they should really be
more of control for quirks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists