linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3] net: e1000e: add MAC address kernel cmd line parameter

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]

Message-ID: <a9381ec45e9b4e5a8388c8414aadda98@asem.it>
Date:   Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:15:39 +0000
From:   Flavio Suligoi <f.suligoi@...m.it>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     "jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] net: e1000e: add MAC address kernel cmd line parameter

> >> > Hi Flavio
> >> >
> >> > u-boot should be able to write the MAC address in the correct part of
> >> > device tree. Boards have been doing this a long time.
> >> >
> >> > Module parameters are considered bad. You should only do it if you
> >> > have no other option. Here you do have another options, so it is
> going
> >> > to be a hard sell getting David to access your patch.
> >> >
> >> > You will have more success by adding a call to
> >> > eth_platform_get_mac_address() to the e1000e driver.
> >>
> >> You have right, and thanks for your suggestions,
> >> but with a kernel parameter I can use the same method
> >> for any board where the NVM is missed, independently of any
> architecture
> >> (with or without the device tree presence - ARM or x86 or others).
> >
> > Hi Flavio
> >
> > Well, lets wait for David to say what he thinks about the module
> > parameter.
> 
> I already rejected this, no way... Drivers that already have the
> unacceptable module parameter are no an argument for spreading this
> mistake further.

Hi David and Andrew,

ok, thank you for your suggestions and your time!

Flavio