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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 02:31:28 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> To: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@...il.com> Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] dt-bindings: net: Document use of mac-address-increment > + mac-address-increment: > + description: > + The MAC address can optionally be increased (or decreased using > + negative values) from the original value readed (from a nvmem cell Read is irregular, there is no readed, just read. > + for example). This can be used if the mac is readed from a dedicated > + partition and must be increased based on the number of device > + present in the system. You should probably add there is no underflow/overflow to other bytes of the MAC address. 00:01:02:03:04:ff + 1 == 00:01:02:03:04:00. > + minimum: -255 > + maximum: 255 > + > + mac-address-increment-byte: > + description: > + If 'mac-address-increment' is defined, this will tell what byte of > + the mac-address will be increased. If 'mac-address-increment' is > + not defined, this option will do nothing. > + default: 5 > + minimum: 0 > + maximum: 5 Is there a real need for this? A value of 0 seems like a bad idea, since a unicast address could easily become a multicast address, which is not valid for an interface address. It also does not seem like a good idea to allow the OUI to be changed. So i think only bytes 3-5 should be allowed, but even then, i don't think this is needed, unless you do have a clear use case. Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists