netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net_tstamp: add new flag HWTSTAMP_FLAGS_UNSTABLE

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: <20211207220814.0ca3403f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 22:08:14 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net_tstamp: add new flag
 HWTSTAMP_FLAGS_UNSTABLE_PHC

On Wed,  8 Dec 2021 12:42:23 +0800 Hangbin Liu wrote:
> -	/* Reserved for future extensions */
> -	if (config->flags)
> -		return -EINVAL;

Should we do something like:

	if (config->flags & ~PHC_DRIVER_IGNORED_FLAGS)
		return -EINVAL;

Or whatnot? We still want the drivers to reject bits other than the new
flag.