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  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:   Mon, 27 Jan 2020 08:45:34 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
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 Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 07:34:33AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 02:21:58PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> > On 1/26/20 1:33 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote
> > > > The long-standing policy in kernel that we don't really care about
> > > > out-of-tree code.
> > > Yeah... we all know it's not that simple :)
> > >
> > > The in-tree driver versions are meaningless and cause annoying churn
> > > when people arbitrarily bump them. If we can get people to stop doing
> > > that we'll be happy, that's all there is to it.
> > >
> > Perhaps it would be helpful if this standard was applied to all the drivers
> > equally?  For example, I see that this week's ice driver update from Intel
> > was accepted with no comment on their driver version bump.
>
> Thanks, it is another great example of why trusting driver authors,
> even experienced, on specific topics is not an option.
>
> >
> > Look, if we want to stamp all in-kernel drivers with the kernel version,
> > fine.  But let's do it in a way that doesn't break the out-of-tree driver
> > ability to report something else.  Can we set up a macro for in-kernel
> > drivers to use in their get_drvinfo callback and require drivers to use that
> > macro?  Then the out-of-tree drivers are able to replace that macro with
> > whatever they need.  Just don't forcibly bash the value from higher up in
> > the stack.
>
> The thing is that we don't consider in-kernel API as stable one, so
> addition of new field which is not in use in upstream looks sketchy to
> me, but I have an idea how to solve it.

Actually, it looks like my idea is Jakub's and Michal's idea. I will use
this opportunity and remove MODULE_VERSION() too.

Thanks

>
> Thanks
>
> >
> > sln
> >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists