netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 8/8] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fail on mismatching probe

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87fuskkcos.fsf@ketchup.mtl.sfl>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:32:03 -0400
From:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 8/8] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fail on mismatching probe

Hi,

Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 08:44:56PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
>> Now that we have access at probe time to the chip info described in the
>> device tree, check if the probed device matches the device node,
>> otherwise warn the user and fail.
>
> What good is this? So what if the device tree says a different
> model. We don't care, we don't use that information at all, we read it
> from the device itself.

So we can end up with a badly described device tree. It seems to be a
question of rigor vs. flexibility. I don't know much about the DT
philosophy and I don't really mind as long as we warn the user.

I'd like to have other opinions on this though before pushing v2.

Thanks,

        Vivien