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: <Y57SPPmui6cwD5Ma@unreal> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2022 10:41:32 +0200 From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...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 Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:50:16PM -0800, 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. And system policy should be controlled by userspace and applicable to as much as possible NICs, without custom module parameters. I would imagine global (at the beginning, till someone comes forward and requests this parameter be per-device) to whole stack parameter with policies: * Be strict - fail if mac is not valid * Fallback to random * Random only ??? Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists