netdev - Re: PoE support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230912152513.6dba998a@kmaincent-XPS-13-7390>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:25:13 +0200
From: Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Thomas
 Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: PoE support

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 13:06:37 +0200
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> wrote:

> > What do you think? Do you think of a better way?  
> 
> By defining UAPI for PoDL/PoE I decided to follow IEEE 802.3
> specification as close as possible for following reasons:
> - we should be backwards and forwards compatible. IEEE 802.3 is always
>   extended, some existing objects and name spaces can be extended
>   withing the specification. If we will merge some of them, it may get
>   challenging to make it properly again.
> - PoDL and PoE have separate attributes and actions withing the
> specification. 
> - If we follow the spec, it is easier to understand for all who need to
>   implement or extend related software
> - I can imagine some industrial device implementing PoDL/PoE on same
>   port. We should be able to see what is actually active.
> 
> IMO, it is better not to mix PoDL and PoE name spaces and keep it as
> close as possible to the IEEE 802.3.
> Same is about ethtool interface. 

Ok, it will add more code duplication but indeed, it will be more flexible
for future standard evolution. I will go for this solution then.