netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v11 14/14] xsc: add ndo_get

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250605065615.46e015eb@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 06:56:15 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Xin Tian <tianx@...silicon.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 leon@...nel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, pabeni@...hat.com,
 edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, jeff.johnson@....qualcomm.com,
 przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com, weihg@...silicon.com, wanry@...silicon.com,
 jacky@...silicon.com, horms@...nel.org,
 parthiban.veerasooran@...rochip.com, masahiroy@...nel.org,
 kalesh-anakkur.purayil@...adcom.com, geert+renesas@...der.be
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v11 14/14] xsc: add ndo_get_stats64

On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 15:39:54 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 at 15:29, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 15:25:21 +0800 Xin Tian wrote:  
> > > Regarding u64_stats_sync.h helpers:
> > > Since our driver exclusively runs on 64-bit platforms (ARM64 or x86_64)
> > > where u64 accesses are atomic, is it still necessary to use these helpers?  
> >
> > alright.  
> 
> [PATCH 1/14] indeed has:
> 
>     depends on PCI
>     depends on ARM64 || X86_64 || COMPILE_TEST
> 
> However, if this device is available on a PCIe expansion card, it
> could be plugged into any system with a PCIe expansion slot?

I've been trying to fight this fight but people keep pushing back :(
Barely any new PCIe driver comes up without depending on X86_64 and/or
ARM64. Maybe we should write down in the docs that it's okay to depend
on 64b but not okay to depend on specific arches?

Requiring 32b arch support for >= 100Gbps NICs feels a bit hard to
justify to me at this stage, but I'm happy to oblige if there are
reasons.