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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:09:47 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>,
        Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>
Cc:     Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ieee802154: Fix compilation error when
 CONFIG_IEEE802154_NL802154_EXPERIMENTAL is disabled

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 22:59:14 +0200 Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for the replies. I keep going back and forth in my head on
what's better - un-hiding or just using NL802154_CMD_SET_WPAN_PHY_NETNS + 1 
as the start of validation, since it's okay to break experimental commands.

Any preference?