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: <20200126222253.GX22304@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date:   Sun, 26 Jan 2020 23:22:53 +0100
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Michal Kalderon <michal.kalderon@...vell.com>,
        RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/core: Replace driver version to be kernel
 version

On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 02:12:38PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> 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.

At the same time, I've been trying to explain both our L1/L2 support
guys and our customers that "driver version" information reported by
"ethtool -i" is almost useless and that if they really want to identify
driver version, they should rather use srcversion as reported by modinfo
or sysfs.

Michal