netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ieee802154: Fix compilation error when CONFIG_IEEE802154_NL802154

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <36f09967-b211-ef48-7360-b6dedfda73e3@datenfreihafen.org>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 22:59:14 +0200
From:   Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ieee802154: Fix compilation error when
 CONFIG_IEEE802154_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL is disabled

Hello Jakub.

On 31.08.22 20:21, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 23:31:24 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> Hm, let me add 802154 folks.
>>
>> Either we should treat the commands as reserved in terms of uAPI
>> even if they get removed the IDs won't be reused, or they are for
>> testing purposes only.
>>
>> In the former case we should just remove the #ifdef around the values
>> in the enum, it just leads to #ifdef proliferation while having no
>> functional impact.
>>
>> In the latter case we should start error checking from the last
>> non-experimental command, as we don't care about breaking the
>> experimental ones.
> 
> I haven't gone thru all of my inbox yet, but I see no reply from Stefan
> or Alexander. My vote is to un-hide the EXPERIMENTAL commands.

I was swamped today and I am only now finding time to go through mail.

Given the problem these ifdef are raising I am ok with having these 
commands exposed without them.

Our main reason for having this feature marked as experimental is that 
it does not have much exposure and we fear that some of it needs rewrites.

If that really is going to happen we will simply treat the current 
commands as reserved/burned and come up with other ones if needed. While 
I hope this will not be needed it is a fair plan for mitigating this.

regards
Stefan Schmidt