netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v3 15/21] ethtool: provide link settings and link modes in GET

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:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 19:14:50 -0800
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v3 15/21] ethtool: provide link settings and
 link modes in GET_SETTINGS request



On 2/18/2019 10:22 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> Implement GET_SETTINGS netlink request to get link settings and link mode
> information provided by ETHTOOL_GLINKSETTINGS ioctl command.
> 
> The information is divided into two parts: supported, advertised and peer
> advertised link modes when ETH_SETTINGS_IM_LINKMODES flag is set in the
> request and other settings when ETH_SETTINGS_IM_LINKINFO is set.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
> ---

[snip]

> +#define ETH_SETTINGS_IM_LINKINFO		0x01
> +#define ETH_SETTINGS_IM_LINKMODES		0x02
> +
> +#define ETH_SETTINGS_IM_ALL			0x03

You could define ETH_SETTINGS_IM_ALL as:

#define ETH_SETTING_IM_ALL		\
		(ETH_SETTINGS_IM_LINKINFO |
		 ETH_SETTINGS_IM_LINMODES)

that would scale better IMHO, especially given that you have to keep
bumping that mask with new bits in subsequent patches.

[snip]

> +	if (tb[ETHA_SETTINGS_INFOMASK])
> +		req_info->req_mask = nla_get_u32(tb[ETHA_SETTINGS_INFOMASK]);
> +	if (tb[ETHA_SETTINGS_COMPACT])
> +		req_info->compact = true;
> +	if (req_info->req_mask == 0)
> +		req_info->req_mask = ETH_SETTINGS_IM_ALL;

What if userland is newer than the kernel and specifies a req_mask with
bits set that you don't support? Should not you always do an &
ETH_SETTINGS_IM_ALL here?

[snip]
-- 
Florian