linux-kernel - Re: [RFC net-next v1 2/5] net: phy: remove MACSEC guard

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:   Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:50:24 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc:     "Radu Pirea (NXP OSS)" <radu-nicolae.pirea@....nxp.com>,
        hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        richardcochran@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v1 2/5] net: phy: remove MACSEC guard

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 05:35:33PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2023-08-11, 18:59:57 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 06:32:46PM +0300, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> > > Allow the phy driver to build the MACSEC support even if
> > > CONFIG_MACSEC=N.
> > 
> > What is missing from this commit message is an answer to the question
> > 'Why?'
> 
> The same question applies to patch #1. Why would we need a dummy
> implementation of macsec_pn_wrapped when !CONFIG_MACSEC?
> 
> I guess it's to avoid conditional compilation of
> drivers/net/phy/nxp-c45-tja11xx-macsec.c and a few ifdefs in the main
> driver.

Which is that the mscc driver does.

Implementing MACSEC is a lot of code, and makes the resulting binary a
lot bigger. So it does seem reasonable to leave it out if MACSEC is
not needed.

So i suggest you follow what mscc does.

    Andrew