Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-30248-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240116103131.413205-1-naresh.solanki@9elements.com>
 <e3e16af2-7f8d-4776-9726-f6282128a766@gmail.com> <3a39f7a2-d6db-43c6-961c-63ba6c774970@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <3a39f7a2-d6db-43c6-961c-63ba6c774970@sirena.org.uk>
From: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:50:17 +0530
Message-ID: <CABqG17gRpAcZhAkxfTnubrQ+d2gNvDk0fspQYZji+ujrLd_+TA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: event: Add netlink command for event mask
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 19:50, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 02:46:41PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > On 1/16/24 12:31, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>
> > > Add netlink command to enable perticular event(s) broadcasting instead
>
> >
> > I think this mechanism for limiting events being forwarded to the listener
> > is worthy. My original idea was to utilize the netlink multicast groups for
> > this so that the regulator core would register multiple multicast groups for
> > this family. User would then listen only the groups he is interested, and
> > multiplexing the messages would be done by netlink/socket code.
>
> > Problem(?) of the approach you propose here is that the event filtering is
> > global for all users. If multicast groups were used, this filtering would be
> > done per listener socket basis. I'm not sure if that would be needed though,
> > but somehow I feel it would be more usable for different user-land
> > appliactions (cost being the increased complexity though).
>
> Thinking about this some more I do think that global filtering like
> the current patch would at least need some sort of permission check,
> otherwise just any random process can disrupt everyone's monitoring.
> Per socket filtering does seem like the way to go.
Agree. Will work on it & after validation will post the CL.
This change can be abandoned for now.

Regards,
Naresh