On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 04:26:28 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:

quoted

+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..