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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220831140947.7e8d06ee@kernel.org> 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?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists