netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v7 1/8] 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, 5 May 2023 12:29:59 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...a.com>,
	Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
	Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Milena Olech <milena.olech@...el.com>,
	Michal Michalik <michal.michalik@...el.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, poros@...hat.com,
	mschmidt@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7 1/8] dpll: spec: Add Netlink spec in YAML

Thu, May 04, 2023 at 11:24:51PM CEST, kuba@...nel.org wrote:
>On Thu, 4 May 2023 14:02:30 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:

[...]

>
>> >+    name: device
>> >+    subset-of: dpll
>> >+    attributes:
>> >+      -
>> >+        name: id
>> >+        type: u32
>> >+        value: 2
>> >+      -
>> >+        name: dev-name
>> >+        type: string
>> >+      -
>> >+        name: bus-name
>> >+        type: string
>> >+      -
>> >+        name: mode
>> >+        type: u8
>> >+        enum: mode
>> >+      -
>> >+        name: mode-supported
>> >+        type: u8
>> >+        enum: mode
>> >+        multi-attr: true
>> >+      -
>> >+        name: lock-status
>> >+        type: u8
>> >+        enum: lock-status
>> >+      -
>> >+        name: temp
>> >+        type: s32
>> >+      -
>> >+        name: clock-id
>> >+        type: u64
>> >+      -
>> >+        name: type
>> >+        type: u8
>> >+        enum: type
>> >+      -
>> >+        name: pin-prio
>> >+        type: u32
>> >+        value: 19  
>> 
>> Do you still need to pass values for a subset? That is odd. Well, I
>> think is is odd to pass anything other than names in subset definition,
>> the rest of the info is in the original attribute set definition,
>> isn't it?
>> Jakub?
>
>Probably stale code, related bug was fixed in YNL a few months back.
>Explicit value should no longer be needed.

What about the rest, like type, enum, multi-attr etc. Are they needed
for subset? If yes, why?