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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20220114181029.0b4f87d4@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:10:29 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>,
        Sunil Sudhakar Rani <sunrani@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...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 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.