netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v6 2/6] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230508124250.20fb1825@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 12:42:50 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz"
 <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>, Vadim Fedorenko
 <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...a.com>, Jonathan
 Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>, poros <poros@...hat.com>, mschmidt
 <mschmidt@...hat.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, "Olech, Milena" <milena.olech@...el.com>,
 "Michalik, Michal" <michal.michalik@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v6 2/6] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

On Mon, 8 May 2023 14:17:30 +0200 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Hmm, that would kind of embed the pin type into attr which feels wrong.  

An attribute which changes meaning based on a value of another attribute
feels even more wrong.

> >Looking at the above from a different angle, the
> >DPLL_A_PIN_FRONT_PANEL_LABEL attribute will be available only for
> >DPLL_PIN_TYPE_EXT type pins, which looks legit to me - possibly
> >renaming DPLL_A_PIN_FRONT_PANEL_LABEL as DPLL_A_PIN_EXT_LABEL.  

Yup. Even renaming EXT to something that's less.. relative :(

> Well sure, in case there is no "label" attr for the rest of the types.
> Which I believe it is, for the ice implementation in this patchset.
> Otherwise, there is no way to distinguish between the pins.
> To have multiple attrs for label for multiple pin types does not make
> any sense to me, that was my point.

Come on, am I really this bad at explaining this?

If we make a generic "label" attribute driver authors will pack
everything they want to expose to the user into it, and then some.

So we need attributes which will feel *obviously* *wrong* to abuse.