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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <482c24aa-ceff-6bb9-a14e-b6dc4ea775e2@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:58:57 +0800 From: Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com> To: Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>, Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, jaka@...ux.ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com Cc: alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com, tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net/smc: Introduce SMC-related proc files On 2023/9/14 18:29, Alexandra Winter wrote: > > > On 13.09.23 11:53, Wen Gu wrote: >> >> >> On 2023/9/11 19:54, Wenjia Zhang wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Wen, >>> >>> I can understand your problem and frustration. However, there are two reasons I'm not really convinced by the proc file method: >>> 1) AFAI, the proc method could consume many CPU time especially in case with a log of sockets to read the pseudo files. >>> 2) We have already implemented the complex netlink method on the same purpose. I see the double expense to main the code. >>> >>> Then the question is if the lack of dependency issue can be handle somehow, or the proc method is the only way to achieve this purpose? >>> >>> Any opinion is welcome! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Wenjia >> >> Hi, Wenjia. I agree with your concerns. >> >> My initial intention is to make these proc files serve as a supplement to netlink to conveniently >> check smc connections in an environment where smc-tools cannot be easily obtained. >> >> Yes, proc files won't be the first choice for diagnosis, but can be a convenient backup. >> >> Thanks, >> Wen Gu >> >> > As /proc is an interface to userface, we would have to maintain the 2 redundant methods basically forever. > I personally don't think we should implement another interface without a very strong reason. I understand, thank you Alexandra and Wenjia. Regards, Wen Gu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists