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  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:	Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:16:35 -0800
From:	David Decotigny <>
To:	Ben Hutchings <>
Cc:	Maciej ┼╗enczykowski <>,
	Amir Vadai <>,
	Florian Fainelli <>,
	Linux NetDev <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,, "David S. Miller" <>,
	Jason Wang <>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <>,
	Herbert Xu <>,
	Al Viro <>,
	Masatake YAMATO <>, Xi Wang <>,
	Neil Horman <>,
	WANG Cong <>,
	Flavio Leitner <>, Tom Gundersen <>,
	Jiri Pirko <>,
	Vlad Yasevich <>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <>,
	Saeed Mahameed <>,
	Venkata Duvvuru <>,
	Govindarajulu Varadarajan <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 0/7] net: extend ethtool link mode bitmaps to
 48 bits

Thanks Ben, I will send an updated version.

About rejecting high bits in drivers that don't support them: a basic
fix (in a separate patch series) could be something like follows in
ethtool_set_settings callbacks:  if (ecmd->advertising_hi) return
-EINVAL; with comments. But I don't find it very nice. Or: allocate a
new net_device::priv_flags bit and ask net/core/ethtool.c to accept
high advertising bits only when this flag is set? Any preference/other

Related: lately, each new class of link modes declared == 4 new bits
allocated. At current pace these 16 new bits buy us only 4 new
classes, ie. a little more than 5 years if I extrapolate from the
recent past. Is the longer term plan to create a new ethtool ioctl
command specialized in link modes with variable length masks? Or to
switch to a brand new netlink interface altogether and take advantage
of that to revisit the link mode reporting/configuration with variable
length masks?

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Ben Hutchings <> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 01:34 +0100, Maciej ┼╗enczykowski wrote:
>> >> I can send updates to other drivers, even though it's rather pointless
>> >> to update 1G drivers at this point for example. Please let me know,
>> >> but I'd prefer to do this in follow-up patches outside this first
>> >> patch series.
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > They should be changed to ensure they reject setting any of the high
>> > advertising flags, but it's not urgent.
>> if old drivers advertised a get/set_bits function while new drivers
>> advertised a get/set_new_bits function,
>> you could not updated any old drivers, and simply take care of
>> rejecting invalid bits in core, by calling set_new_bits if provided,
>> if not, rejecting bad bits and calling set_bits if no bad bits were
>> set.
> We've never checked that the reserved fields are zero before, and I
> think there are still drivers that don't fully validate the existing 32
> bits.  So while I think drivers should fully validate the advertising
> flags, userland generally can't assume they do.  And therefore I don't
> think it's worth adding complexity to the ethtool core that only partly
> fixes this.
> Ben.
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> This sentence contradicts itself - no actually it doesn't.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists