linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v4 02/13] net/8390: Fix msg

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:47:58 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 02/13] net/8390: Fix msg_enable patch snafu

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, David Miller wrote:

> > Have you considered that implementing the ethtool hooks in the core 
> > driver might allow removal of all 8390 driver 'msg_enable' module 
> > parameters and msglevel ethtool hooks added by c45f812f0280, excepting 
> > those in the core driver? But even if we did that, it seems to me that 
> > we still need this patch.
> 
> No, because the module parameter lets you set the default msg level at 
> the time the driver loads, so you can control messages printed very 
> early on before it is practical to invoke ethtool and set the msg level.
> 
> This is why most drivers have this module parameter, and implement
> such a scheme.

Among the 8390 drivers, so far only ne2k-pci implements that scheme.

This patch implements that scheme for ax88796 and etherh as well, by 
making better use of the msg_enable module parameter in lib8390.c.

The axnet_cs and pcnet_cs modules lack the msglevel ethtool ops and the 
msg_enable module parameters.

The remaining nine modules lack just the ethtool ops. If you like I will 
write additional patches to implement the missing ethtool ops or module 
parameters or both (?)

This small patch already addresses the use-case in which the end-user 
needs to enable (for example) probe messages for some or all 8390 drivers.

Thoughts?

--