On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 04:26:28 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > +int ionic_identify(struct ionic *ionic)
> > +{
> > + struct ionic_identity *ident = &ionic->ident;
> > + struct ionic_dev *idev = &ionic->idev;
> > + size_t sz;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + memset(ident, 0, sizeof(*ident));
> > +
> > + ident->drv.os_type = cpu_to_le32(IONIC_OS_TYPE_LINUX);
> > + ident->drv.os_dist = 0;
> > + strncpy(ident->drv.os_dist_str, utsname()->release,
> > + sizeof(ident->drv.os_dist_str) - 1);
> > + ident->drv.kernel_ver = cpu_to_le32(LINUX_VERSION_CODE);
> > + strncpy(ident->drv.kernel_ver_str, utsname()->version,
> > + sizeof(ident->drv.kernel_ver_str) - 1);
> > + strncpy(ident->drv.driver_ver_str, IONIC_DRV_VERSION,
> > + sizeof(ident->drv.driver_ver_str) - 1);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&ionic->dev_cmd_lock);
> > +
>
> I don't know about others, but from a privacy prospective, i'm not so
> happy about this. This is a smart NIC. It could be reporting back to
> Mothership pensando with this information?
>
> I would be happier if there was a privacy statement, right here,
> saying what this information is used for, and an agreement it is not
> used for anything else. If that gets violated, you can then only blame
> yourself when we ripe this out and hard code it to static values.
FWIW seems like a fair ask to me..
