netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 02/18] ionic: Add hardware init and device commands

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190826212809.7bf85333@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 21:28:19 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 02/18] ionic: Add hardware init and device
 commands

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 04:26:28 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > +int ionic_identify(struct ionic *ionic)
> > +{
> > +	struct ionic_identity *ident = &ionic->ident;
> > +	struct ionic_dev *idev = &ionic->idev;
> > +	size_t sz;
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	memset(ident, 0, sizeof(*ident));
> > +
> > +	ident->drv.os_type = cpu_to_le32(IONIC_OS_TYPE_LINUX);
> > +	ident->drv.os_dist = 0;
> > +	strncpy(ident->drv.os_dist_str, utsname()->release,
> > +		sizeof(ident->drv.os_dist_str) - 1);
> > +	ident->drv.kernel_ver = cpu_to_le32(LINUX_VERSION_CODE);
> > +	strncpy(ident->drv.kernel_ver_str, utsname()->version,
> > +		sizeof(ident->drv.kernel_ver_str) - 1);
> > +	strncpy(ident->drv.driver_ver_str, IONIC_DRV_VERSION,
> > +		sizeof(ident->drv.driver_ver_str) - 1);
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&ionic->dev_cmd_lock);
> > +  
> 
> I don't know about others, but from a privacy prospective, i'm not so
> happy about this. This is a smart NIC. It could be reporting back to
> Mothership pensando with this information?
> 
> I would be happier if there was a privacy statement, right here,
> saying what this information is used for, and an agreement it is not
> used for anything else. If that gets violated, you can then only blame
> yourself when we ripe this out and hard code it to static values.

FWIW seems like a fair ask to me..