netdev - Re: [patch net-next] virtio_net: add support for Byte Queue Limits

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, 7 Jun 2024 13:30:34 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>,
	Heng Qi <hengqi@...ux.alibaba.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
	xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
	ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next] virtio_net: add support for Byte Queue Limits

Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 12:23:37PM CEST, mst@...hat.com wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 11:57:37AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >True. Personally, I would like to just drop orphan mode. But I'm not
>> >sure others are happy with this.
>> 
>> How about to do it other way around. I will take a stab at sending patch
>> removing it. If anyone is against and has solid data to prove orphan
>> mode is needed, let them provide those.
>
>Break it with no warning and see if anyone complains?

This is now what I suggested at all.

>No, this is not how we handle userspace compatibility, normally.

Sure.

Again:

I would send orphan removal patch containing:
1) no module options removal. Warn if someone sets it up
2) module option to disable napi is ignored
3) orphan mode is removed from code

There is no breakage. Only, hypotetically performance downgrade in some
hypotetical usecase nobody knows of. My point was, if someone presents
solid data to prove orphan is needed during the patch review, let's toss
out the patch.

Makes sense?


>
>-- 
>MST
>