linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: marvell: prestera: bump supported firmware version to 3.0

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]

Date:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:54:34 +0300
From:   Vadym Kochan <vadym.kochan@...ision.eu>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@...vell.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mickey Rachamim <mickeyr@...vell.com>,
        Vadym Kochan <vkochan@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: marvell: prestera: bump supported
 firmware version to 3.0

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 04:18:52PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Regarding the distribution issue when the driver version might be released
> > earlier than the firmware, it looks like that the probability of such
> > case is very low because the distributor of the target Linux system will
> > keep track (actually this is how I see it) that driver and firmware
> > versions are aligned.
> 
> You really expect Debian, Redhat, openWRT, SuSE to keep a close eye on
> your kernel driver and update their packages at a time you suggest?
> 

No, I don't think these distros will keep track it because they are
targeted for wider usages).
But I think that NOS specifc distro (which may be based on top of which
you listed) will do it (sure this is just my assumption).

> I'm also not sure your management port argument is valid. This is an
> enterprise switch, not a TOR. It is probably installed in some broom
> cupboard at a satellite facility. The management port is not likely to
> have its own dedicated link back to the central management
> site. Upgrades are going to be applied over the network, and you have
> a real danger of turning it into a remote brick, needing local access
> to restore it.
> 
> I really think you need to support two firmware generations.
> 
>   Andrew

I am just trying to clarify if it really worth of it because it will
lead to the hairy code and keep structs for previous FW version.
Ofcourse it may have not a big impact if it will be possible to handle
FW differences in prestera_hw.c only.

I really appreciate your comments, just sharing some concerns/doubts
to discuss.

Thanks,
Vadym Kochan