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 12:38:05 +0100
From:   Jiri Pirko <>
To:     Michal Kubecek <>
Cc:     David Miller <>,,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Andrew Lunn <>,
        Florian Fainelli <>,
        John Linville <>,
        Stephen Hemminger <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/22] rtnetlink: provide permanent hardware
 address in RTM_NEWLINK

Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:31:15AM CET, wrote:
>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:
>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.

If the attribute is sent to userspace, it should mean the permaddr is
there and valid.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists