netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4] net: hdlc_x25: Queue outgoing LAPB frames

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJht_ENFd74+MeqYDk4AtipKFcQ3n7WHG-rNL62Z=K3FxWct=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:23:24 -0800
From:   Xie He <xie.he.0141@...il.com>
To:     Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux X25 <linux-x25@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4] net: hdlc_x25: Queue outgoing LAPB frames

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 5:26 AM Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de> wrote:
>
> On 2021-03-03 00:30, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >
> > Hard question to answer, existing users seem happy and Xie's driver
> > isn't upstream, so the justification for potentially breaking backward
> > compatibility isn't exactly "strong".
> >
> > Can we cop out and add a knob somewhere to control spawning the extra
> > netdev? Let people who just want a newer kernel carry on without
> > distractions and those who want the extra layer can flip the switch?
>
> Yes, that would be a good compromise.
> I think a compile time selection option is enough here.
> We could introduce a new config option CONFIG_HDLC_X25_LEGACY (or
> something like that) and then implement the new or the old behavior in
> the driver accordingly.
>
> A switch that can be toggled at runtime (e.g. via sethdlc) would also be
> conceivable, but I don't think this is necessary.

Yes, I think adding a new config option would be a good way. Thank you both!!