netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 0/7] Provide an ism layer

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]

Message-ID: <3e97f471-69fd-42bd-acf4-64201eaf6994@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 16:10:18 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com, Julian Ruess <julianr@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.com>, Gerd Bayer <gbayer@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
	"D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Thorsten Winkler <twinkler@...ux.ibm.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/7] Provide an ism layer

On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Alexandra Winter wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17.01.25 03:13, Dust Li wrote:
> >>>> Modular Approach: I've made the ism_loopback an independent kernel
> >>>> module since dynamic enable/disable functionality is not yet supported
> >>>> in SMC. Using insmod and rmmod for module management could provide the
> >>>> flexibility needed in practical scenarios.
> >>
> >> With this proposal ism_loopback is just another ism device and SMC-D will
> >> handle removal just like ism_client.remove(ism_dev) of other ism devices.
> >>
> >> But I understand that net/smc/ism_loopback.c today does not provide enable/disable,
> >> which is a big disadvantage, I agree. The ism layer is prepared for dynamic
> >> removal by ism_dev_unregister(). In case of this RFC that would only happen
> >> in case of rmmod ism. Which should be improved.
> >> One way to do that would be a separate ism_loopback kernel module, like you say.
> >> Today ism_loopback is only 10k LOC, so I'd be fine with leaving it in the ism module.
> >> I also think it is a great way for testing any ISM client, so it has benefit for
> >> anybody using the ism module.
> >> Another way would be e.g. an 'enable' entry in the sysfs of the loopback device.
> >> (Once we agree if and how to represent ism devices in genera in sysfs).
> > This works for me as well. I think it would be better to implement this
> > within the common ISM layer, rather than duplicating the code in each
> > device. Similar to how it's done in netdevice.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Dust
> 
> 
> Is there a specific example for enable/disable in the netdevice code, you have in mind?
> Or do you mean in general how netdevice provides a common layer?
> Yes, everything that is common for all devices should be provided by the network layer.

Again, lack of basic understanding.... but why is it not a network
device? Network devices are not just Ethernet. We also have CAN, SLIP,
FDDI, etc.

	Andrew