netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2] ip link: add sub-command to view and change DSA master

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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:11:05 +0000
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
CC:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ip link: add sub-command to view and change DSA
 master

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 07:25:19AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 08:08:23 -0600 David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > Proposing any alternative naming raises the question how far you want to
> > > go with the alternative name. No user of DSA knows the "conduit interface"
> > > or "management port" or whatnot by any other name except "DSA master".
> > > What do we do about the user-visible Documentation/networking/dsa/configuration.rst,
> > > which clearly and consistently uses the 'master' name everywhere?
> > > Do we replace 'master' with something else and act as if it was never
> > > named 'master' in the first place? Do we introduce IFLA_DSA_MGMT_PORT as
> > > UAPI and explain in the documentation "oh yeah, that's how you change
> > > the DSA master"? "Ahh ok, why didn't you just call it IFLA_DSA_MASTER
> > > then?" "Well...."
> > > 
> > > Also, what about the code in net/dsa/*.c and drivers/net/dsa/, do we
> > > also change that to reflect the new terminology, or do we just have
> > > documentation stating one thing and the code another?
> > > 
> > > At this stage, I'm much more likely to circumvent all of this, and avoid
> > > triggering anyone by making a writable IFLA_LINK be the mechanism through
> > > which we change the DSA master.  
> > 
> > IMHO, 'master' should be an allowed option giving the precedence of
> > existing code and existing terminology. An alternative keyword can be
> > used for those that want to avoid use of 'master' in scripts. vrf is an
> > example of this -- you can specify 'vrf <device>' as a keyword instead
> > of 'master <vrf>'
> 
> Agreed, just wanted to start discussion of alternative wording.

So are we or are we not in the clear with IFLA_DSA_MASTER and
"ip link set ... type dsa master ..."? What does being in the clear even
mean technically, and where can I find more details about the policy
which you just mentioned? Like is it optional or mandatory, was there
any public debate surrounding the motivation for flagging some words,
how is it enforced, are there official exceptions, etc?

In a normal code review environment I'd be receiving feedback and a
concrete suggestion for a change from an actual person who has an actual
issue (theoretical or practical, but an issue that he/she can express
and stand for) with the code in its current form. I would not be expected
to act based on something whose fundamental substantiation is hearsay.

In other words, you can't "just" start a discussion of alternative
wording, without actually going through any of the specifics. Or rather,
you can, but you're likely to be ignored, just like you would have been,
were the comment related to a technical aspect.