netdev - Re: [patch net] ethtool: set addr_assign_type to NET_ADDR

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: <1357576565.2658.6.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jan 2013 16:36:05 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<shemminger@...tta.com>, <sassmann@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net] ethtool: set addr_assign_type to NET_ADDR_SET when
 addr is passed on create

On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 23:38 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> In case user passed address via netlink during create, NET_ADDR_PERM was set.
> That is not correct so fix this by setting NET_ADDR_SET.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>

Not sure what this has to do with ethtool...

> ---
>  net/core/rtnetlink.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/rtnetlink.c b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> index 9969afb..9a419b0 100644
> --- a/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> +++ b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> @@ -1667,9 +1667,11 @@ struct net_device *rtnl_create_link(struct net *net,
>  
>  	if (tb[IFLA_MTU])
>  		dev->mtu = nla_get_u32(tb[IFLA_MTU]);
> -	if (tb[IFLA_ADDRESS])
> +	if (tb[IFLA_ADDRESS]) {
>  		memcpy(dev->dev_addr, nla_data(tb[IFLA_ADDRESS]),
>  				nla_len(tb[IFLA_ADDRESS]));
> +		dev->addr_assign_type = NET_ADDR_SET;
> +	}
>  	if (tb[IFLA_BROADCAST])
>  		memcpy(dev->broadcast, nla_data(tb[IFLA_BROADCAST]),
>  				nla_len(tb[IFLA_BROADCAST]));

But if the address is not specified for this new device,
addr_assign_type remains NET_ADD_PERM, right?  That sort of makes sense
in that the 'permanent address' of a software device is all-zeroes.  I
would prefer to have a way for devices to deny having a permanent
address, but it's a bit late to change that now.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html