From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
To: jt@hpl.hp.com
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] WE-22 : prevent information leak on 64 bit
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:59:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adaejmi1x2f.fsf@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070417211859.GB22897@bougret.hpl.hp.com> (Jean Tourrilhes's message of "Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:19:00 -0700")
> > This API was controversial and mostly unwelcome from the start.
> > It was ridiculed as "ioctls over netlink" at the last kernel summit.
>
> Which is complete FUD. In that case, the whole RtNetlink can
> be classified as "ioctls over netlink".
The problem is that WE over netlink is basically using netlink to
transfer the same binary blobs as the WE ioctls, rather than using
properly structured netlink messages.
> > One of the objections to having merged the API was that _if_ it were
> > to gain users then we would have to carry that maintenance burden
> > ad infinitum.
>
> More FUD. It does not add any new commands. The proof is in
> the pudding, no change was needed in any driver to support it,
> therefore it could not have added any burden on any compatibility
> layer.
The point is that if WE over netlink is used by applications, then the
kernel must maintain that ABI (of WE over netlink) forever.
- R.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier-FYB4Gu1CFyUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: jt-sDzT885Ts8HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org
Cc: "John W. Linville"
<linville-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>,
Johannes Berg <johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>,
linux-wireless
<linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] WE-22 : prevent information leak on 64 bit
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:59:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adaejmi1x2f.fsf@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070417211859.GB22897-yAE0UhLNZJawPNPzzlOzwdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> (Jean Tourrilhes's message of "Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:19:00 -0700")
> > This API was controversial and mostly unwelcome from the start.
> > It was ridiculed as "ioctls over netlink" at the last kernel summit.
>
> Which is complete FUD. In that case, the whole RtNetlink can
> be classified as "ioctls over netlink".
The problem is that WE over netlink is basically using netlink to
transfer the same binary blobs as the WE ioctls, rather than using
properly structured netlink messages.
> > One of the objections to having merged the API was that _if_ it were
> > to gain users then we would have to carry that maintenance burden
> > ad infinitum.
>
> More FUD. It does not add any new commands. The proof is in
> the pudding, no change was needed in any driver to support it,
> therefore it could not have added any burden on any compatibility
> layer.
The point is that if WE over netlink is used by applications, then the
kernel must maintain that ABI (of WE over netlink) forever.
- R.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-17 22:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-23 0:31 [PATCH 2.6] WE-22 : prevent information leak on 64 bit Jean Tourrilhes
2007-03-27 13:24 ` Ingo Oeser
2007-04-02 10:06 ` Johannes Berg
2007-04-17 17:08 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2007-04-17 17:08 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2007-04-17 18:34 ` John W. Linville
2007-04-17 18:34 ` John W. Linville
2007-04-17 21:19 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2007-04-17 21:59 ` Roland Dreier [this message]
2007-04-17 21:59 ` Roland Dreier
2007-04-17 23:34 ` Michael Buesch
2007-04-17 23:34 ` Michael Buesch
2007-04-18 16:30 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2007-04-18 16:30 ` Jean Tourrilhes
2007-04-18 10:18 ` Johannes Berg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=adaejmi1x2f.fsf@cisco.com \
--to=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=jt@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.