netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 1/3] faux: extend the creation function for module namespace

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: <2025031848-atrocious-defy-d7f8@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 15:36:34 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
	leon@...nel.org, tariqt@...dia.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
	dakr@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org, przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com,
	anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, cratiu@...dia.com,
	jacob.e.keller@...el.com, konrad.knitter@...el.com,
	cjubran@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 1/3] faux: extend the creation function for
 module namespace

On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 01:47:04PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
> 
> It is hard for the faux user to avoid potential name conflicts, as it is
> only in control of faux devices it creates. Therefore extend the faux
> device creation function by module parameter, embed the module name into
> the device name in format "modulename_permodulename" and allow module to
> control it's namespace.

Do you have an example of how this will change the current names we have
in the system to this new way?  What is going to break if those names
change?

I say this as the perf devices seem to have "issues" with their names
and locations in sysfs as userspace tools use them today, and in a
straight port to faux it is ok, but if the device name changes, that is
going to have problems.

Why can't you handle this "namespace" issue yourself in the caller to
the api?  Why must the faux code handle it for you?  We don't do this
for platform devices, why is this any different?

thanks,

greg k-h