netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/core: Replace driver version to be kernel version

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: <0755f526-73cb-e926-2785-845fec0f51dd@pensando.io>
Date:   Sun, 26 Jan 2020 14:12:38 -0800
From:   Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Michal Kalderon <michal.kalderon@...vell.com>,
        linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/core: Replace driver version to be kernel
 version

On 1/26/20 1:24 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 01:17:52PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote:
>> On 1/26/20 1:08 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> The long-standing policy in kernel that we don't really care about
>>> out-of-tree code.
>> That doesn't mean we need to be aggressively against out-of-tree code.  One
>> of the positive points about Linux and loadable modules has always been the
>> flexibility that allows and encourages innovation, and helps enable more
>> work and testing before a driver can become a fully-fledged part of the
>> kernel.  This move actively discourages part of that flexibility and I think
>> it is breaking part of the usefulness of modules.
> You are mixing definitions, nothing stops those people to innovate and
> develop their code inside kernel and as standalone modules too.
>
> It just stops them to put useless driver version string inside ethtool.
> If they feel that their life can't be without something from 90s, they
> have venerable MODULE_VERSION() macro to print anything they want.
>
Part of the pain of supporting our users is getting them to give us 
useful information about their problem.  The more commands I need them 
to run to get information about the environment, the less likely I will 
get anything useful.  We've been training our users over the years to 
use "ethtool -i" to get a good chunk of that info, with the knowledge 
that the driver version is only a hint, based upon the distro involved.  
I don't want to lose that hint.  If anything, I'd prefer that we added a 
field for UTS_RELEASE in the ethtool output, but I know that's too much 
to ask.

If the driver can put its "useless" version info into the 
MODULE_VERSION, why is it not acceptable for the ethtool driver version 
field?

... and as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a judgement of 
"useless" is a personal thing.  Personally, I find it the driver version 
useful.

sln