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:   Fri, 17 Mar 2023 11:07:07 +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

Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 01:53:49AM CET, arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com wrote:
>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>>Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:20 PM
>>
>>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.
>>
>>[...]
>
>Sorry I cannot, for priority based automatic selection mode multiple sources
>are enabled at any time - selection is done automatically by the chip.
>Thus for that case, this attribute is only way of getting an active source.
>Although, maybe we could allow driver to not implement it, would this help
>for your case? As it seems only required for automatic mode selection.

Please see the other reply for this patch where I describe what I
think is wrong about this approach and suggesting a solution.


>
>Thank you,
>Arkadiusz