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  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:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:31:15 +0100
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/22] rtnetlink: provide permanent hardware
 address in RTM_NEWLINK

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:08:36AM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> 
> I don't think we should put permaddr if driver did not set it. 2
> solutions:
> 1) provide a helper that driver will use to set the perm_addr. This
>    helper sets a "valid bit". Then you only put IFLA_PERM_ADDRESS
>    in case the "valid bit" is set.
> 2) Assuming that no driver would set permaddr to all zeroes,
>    don't put IFLA_PERM_ADDRESS in case permadd is all zeroes.

I already replied to similar suggestion in v4 discussion:

  http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1060164/#2117512

But I don't have really strong opinion about this. The problem with not
being able to distinguish between "no/unknown permanent address" and
"old kernel not providing the information" is going to become less
important over time.

Michal

Powered by blists - more mailing lists