linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 10/10] ethtool: Veto some operations during firmware flashing process

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: <20240429202331.29f3dafa@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 20:23:31 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Danielle Ratson <danieller@...dia.com>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, <corbet@....net>, <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 <sdf@...gle.com>, <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
 <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>, <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
 <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, <ahmed.zaki@...el.com>,
 <richardcochran@...il.com>, <shayagr@...zon.com>,
 <paul.greenwalt@...el.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
 <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <mlxsw@...dia.com>, <petrm@...dia.com>, <idosch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 10/10] ethtool: Veto some operations during
 firmware flashing process

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:30:23 +0300 Danielle Ratson wrote:
> Some operations cannot be performed during the firmware flashing process.
> 
> For example:
> 
> - Port must be down during the whole flashing process to avoid packet loss
>   while committing reset for example.
> 
> - Writing to EEPROM interrupts the flashing process, so operations like
>   ethtool dump, module reset, get and set power mode should be vetoed.
> 
> - Split port firmware flashing should be vetoed.
> 
> - Flashing firmware on a device which is already in a flashing process
>   should be forbidden.
> 
> Use the 'module_fw_flashing_in_progress' flag introduced in a previous
> patch to veto those operations and prevent interruptions while preforming
> module firmware flash.

Feels a little out of order to add this check after the functionality.
I'd merge this with patch 5.