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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <YxrYrhSRayY03ahF@d3> Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 15:09:50 +0900 From: Benjamin Poirier <benjamin.poirier@...il.com> To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, 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 2022-09-08 16:11 +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > 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? There are more details in Documentation/process/coding-style.rst, end of ยง4.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists