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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 01 Jul 2020 12:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     kuba@...nel.org
Cc:     ecree@...arflare.com, linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/15] sfc_ef100: add EF100 to NIC-revision
 enumeration

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:11:31 -0700

> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:55:10 +0100 Edward Cree wrote:
>> Also, condition on revision in ethtool drvinfo: if rev is EF100, then
>>  we must be the sfc_ef100 driver.  (We can't rely on KBUILD_MODNAME
>>  any more, because ethtool_common.o gets linked into both drivers.)
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ethtool_common.c | 5 ++++-
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/nic_common.h     | 1 +
>>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ethtool_common.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ethtool_common.c
>> index 37a4409e759e..926deb22ee67 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ethtool_common.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ethtool_common.c
>> @@ -104,7 +104,10 @@ void efx_ethtool_get_drvinfo(struct net_device *net_dev,
>>  {
>>  	struct efx_nic *efx = netdev_priv(net_dev);
>>  
>> -	strlcpy(info->driver, KBUILD_MODNAME, sizeof(info->driver));
>> +	if (efx->type->revision == EFX_REV_EF100)
>> +		strlcpy(info->driver, "sfc_ef100", sizeof(info->driver));
>> +	else
>> +		strlcpy(info->driver, "sfc", sizeof(info->driver));
> 
> ethtool info -> driver does not seem like an appropriate place to
> report hardware version.

Agreed.

Or is this code used as a library by two "drivers"?  In that case it's fine.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists