netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] net: e1000e: add MAC address kernel cmd line parameter

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: <20190228.114707.11382969767373748.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 28 Feb 2019 11:47:07 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     andrew@...n.ch
Cc:     f.suligoi@...m.it, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net: e1000e: add MAC address kernel cmd line
 parameter

From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 20:29:58 +0100

> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 05:13:27PM +0000, Flavio Suligoi wrote:
>> > > Hi Andrew,
>> > >
>> > > we produce a lot of boards and we have to change the MAC address,
>> > > from u-boot, for every board.  So I must save in the u-boot
>> > > environment (SPI NOR flash) the MAC address for every board.
>> > 
>> > Hi Flavio
>> > 
>> > u-boot should be able to write the MAC address in the correct part of
>> > device tree. Boards have been doing this a long time.
>> > 
>> > Module parameters are considered bad. You should only do it if you
>> > have no other option. Here you do have another options, so it is going
>> > to be a hard sell getting David to access your patch.
>> > 
>> > You will have more success by adding a call to
>> > eth_platform_get_mac_address() to the e1000e driver.
>> 
>> You have right, and thanks for your suggestions, 
>> but with a kernel parameter I can use the same method
>> for any board where the NVM is missed, independently of any architecture
>> (with or without the device tree presence - ARM or x86 or others).
> 
> Hi Flavio
> 
> Well, lets wait for David to say what he thinks about the module
> parameter.

I already rejected this, no way... Drivers that already have the
unacceptable module parameter are no an argument for spreading this
mistake further.