netdev - Re: [PATCH] iproute2: enhance addr label validation

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

Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:22:53 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:	Joe Harvell <joe.harvell@...comms.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Hemminger <shemming@...cade.com>,
	Vadim Kochan <vadim4j@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iproute2: enhance addr label validation

Hi Joe,

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:43:03AM -0500, Joe Harvell wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Joe,
> >>
> >>On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:14:53PM -0500, Joe Harvell wrote:
> >>>The ip addr command today rejects address labels that would break
> >>>ifconfig.  However, it allows some labels which still break it. Enhance
> >>>enforcement to reject all known incompatible labels, and allow the
> >>>existing -force option to allow someone to use a label even if it is
> >>>not
> >>>ifconfig compatible
> >>I am concerned this will break existing users who are relying on setting
> >>labels that would now be rejected without using -force.
> >>
> >[snip]
> >
> >Simon,
> >
> >Good point.  I propose the following:
> >
> >When a label is specified without -force, and that label begins with the
> >interface
> >name but is followed by something other than a colon, accept the label but
> >emit
> >a warning message indicating this label is incompatible with ifconfig and
> >that later
> >versions of the 'ip address' command may reject it.  This message can also
> >indicate
> >that -force can be specified to explicitly indicate a label that is non
> >ifconfig compatible
> >is desired.
> >
> >At some point in the future, the behavior could then be changed to reject
> >such labels.
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >---
> >Joe
>
> Ok, I made the changes I propose above, and have pushed them to
> 'git@...hub.com:jharvell/iproute2.git addr-label-noncompat' with a new
> signoff commit (303f46819883d4c808974629a6d3515102c5c0d0) that summarizes
> all the changes from master.  But I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do
> with respect to the patch in patchwork to designate that I want the new
> code to be merged instead of before the change.  Do I reject this patch
> request and submit another one?  Do I send an email with the same subject
> as this one with the new patch against master?

To some extent this is up to Stephen, who is the maintainer.
But I expect the following should be close to the mark:

1. If you new patch has the same title as the previous patch then
   you can post it as [PATCH v2] and it should be fairly clear that
   it supersedes the previous version.

2. If you new patch has a different title then there could be a note
  in response to it noting that it has been superseded. In effect your
  previous email is such a note.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html