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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists