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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 22:43:12 +0100 From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> Cc: Lixue Liang <lianglixuehao@....com>, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, lianglixue@...atwall.com.cn, Alexander H Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] igb: Assign random MAC address instead of fail in case of invalid one On 14.12.2022 21:50, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 20:53:30 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 08:51:06AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 09:22:13 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>>> NAK to any module driver parameter. If it is applicable to all drivers, >>>> please find a way to configure it to more user-friendly. If it is not, >>>> try to do the same as other drivers do. >>> >>> I think this one may be fine. Configuration which has to be set before >>> device probing can't really be per-device. >> >> This configuration can be different between multiple devices >> which use same igb module. Module parameters doesn't allow such >> separation. > > Configuration of the device, sure, but this module param is more of > a system policy. BTW the name of the param is not great, we're allowing > the use of random address, not an invalid address. > >> Also, as a user, I despise random module parameters which I need >> to set after every HW update/replacement. > > Agreed, IIUC the concern was alerting users to incorrect EEPROM values. > I thought falling back to a random address was relatively common, but > I haven't done the research. My 2ct, because I once added the fallback to a random MAC address to r8169: Question is whether there's any scenario where you would prefer bailing out in case of invalid MAC address over assigning a random MAC address (that the user may manually change later) plus a warning. I'm not aware of such a scenario. Therefore I decided to hardcode this fallback in the driver.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists