netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 04/15] ice: add devlink parameters to read and write minimum security revision

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: <CO1PR11MB510517FC3ABC05123D62721CFAB19@CO1PR11MB5105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Sat, 6 Feb 2021 02:32:11 +0000
From:   "Brelinski, TonyX" <tonyx.brelinski@...el.com>
To:     "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC:     "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 04/15] ice: add devlink parameters to read and
 write minimum security revision

From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com> 
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:54 PM
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>; davem@...emloft.net; netdev@...r.kernel.org; sassmann@...hat.com; Brelinski, TonyX <tonyx.brelinski@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 04/15] ice: add devlink parameters to read and write minimum security revision



On 2/4/2021 11:10 AM, Jacob Keller wrote:
> I'd rather see the right solution designed here, so if this isn't the 
> right direction I want to work with the list to figure out what makes 
> the most sense. (Even if that's "minimum security should update 
> automatically").
>
I want to clarify here based on feedback I received from customer support engineers: We believe it is not acceptable to update this automatically, because not all customers want that behavior and would prefer to have control over when to lock in the minimum security revision.

Previous products have behaved this way and we had significant feedback when this occurred that many of our customers were unhappy about this, even after we explained the reasoning.

I do not believe that we can accept an automatic/default update of minimum security revision.

----------------------------------------------
I tested this revision:
Tested-by: Tony Brelinski <tonyx.brelinski@...el.com> A Contingent Worker at Intel