netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v6 1/6] dpll: spec: Add Netlink spec in YAML

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, 16 Mar 2023 16:19:52 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>
Cc:     Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...a.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>,
        poros <poros@...hat.com>, mschmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Michalik, Michal" <michal.michalik@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 1/6] dpll: spec: Add Netlink spec in YAML

Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 02:45:10PM CET, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
>Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 02:15:59PM CET, arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com wrote:

[...]


>>>>+      flags: [ admin-perm ]
>>>>+
>>>>+      do:
>>>>+        pre: dpll-pre-doit
>>>>+        post: dpll-post-doit
>>>>+        request:
>>>>+          attributes:
>>>>+            - id
>>>>+            - bus-name
>>>>+            - dev-name
>>>>+            - mode
>>>
>>>Hmm, shouldn't source-pin-index be here as well?
>>
>>No, there is no set for this.
>>For manual mode user selects the pin by setting enabled state on the one
>>he needs to recover signal from.
>>
>>source-pin-index is read only, returns active source.
>
>Okay, got it. Then why do we have this assymetric approach? Just have
>the enabled state to serve the user to see which one is selected, no?
>This would help to avoid confusion (like mine) and allow not to create
>inconsistencies (like no pin enabled yet driver to return some source
>pin index)

Actually, for mlx5 implementation, would be non-trivial to implement
this, as each of the pin/port is instantiated and controlled by separate
pci backend.

Could you please remove, it is not needed and has potential and real
issues.

[...]