netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] Autoload DSA tagging driver when dynamically changing protocol

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:   Fri, 28 Oct 2022 09:28:41 +0000
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Heiko Thiery <heiko.thiery@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] Autoload DSA tagging driver when
 dynamically changing protocol

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> >   alias:          dsa_tag-ocelot-8021q
> >   alias:          dsa_tag-20
> 
> I know that name clashes are not to be expected because one is a numerical id
> and the other is a string, but it might still make sense to have a different
> prefix so the user of modinfo can figure that out more easily.
> 
> Presuming that backwards compatibility is not an issue, maybe:
> dsa_tag-ocelot-8021q
> dsa_tag-id-20

Hm, it probably isn't an issue, but I'd like to hear from
Andrew/Florian/Vivien as well?

In the same note, "enum dsa_tag_protocol" isn't considered ABI either,
or in other words, we can reorder them, and DSA_TAG_PROTO_OCELOT_8021Q_VALUE
could become, say, 19 instead of 20 in a future kernel version, and that
would still be fine, because we would never load a module built for
kernel 6.1 in a 6.2 kernel?

> FWIW
> Tested-by: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc> # on kontron-sl28 w/
> ocelot_8021q

Thanks for reporting the problem and for testing!