linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net/ncsi: Add NC-SI 1.2 Get MC MAC Address command

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]

Message-ID: <ZXZ5EOSJAekCiT44@heinlein.vulture-banana.ts.net>
Date:   Sun, 10 Dec 2023 20:50:56 -0600
From:   Patrick Williams <patrick@...cx.xyz>
To:     Ivan Mikhaylov <fr0st61te@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, peter@....dev, sam@...dozajonas.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net/ncsi: Add NC-SI 1.2 Get MC MAC
 Address command

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 12:53:56AM +0300, Ivan Mikhaylov wrote:
> 
> seems very similar to ncsi_rsp_handler_oem_gma except address_count, why it
> shouldn't be part of this call with additional param? What's inside it just
> code duplicity of ncsi_rsp_handler_oem_gma.
> 
> And as we talked in openbmc mailing list, ndo_set_mac_address do not notify
> network layer about mac change and this fixed part already in
> ncsi_rsp_handler_oem_gma with 790071347a0a1a89e618eedcd51c687ea783aeb3 .
> 
> David, any actions should be needed about fixing it in net-next? Need it to
> put patch above with fix or do the revert from net-next and make it right?

I agree that both of your recommendations might make the code better,
but I don't see why we would need to revert it.  The code does the
intended function for many use cases, even if you've identified a few
where calling `dev_set_mac_address` would be better.

Either you or I can send a "Fixes: " on this commit to improve the
handling as you're proposing.  While the change is likely trivial, I
have not had any chance to test it yet, so I've not sent it up myself.
If you want to refactor the code to reduce duplication, I think that should
be an entirely separate proposal.

-- 
Patrick Williams

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)