netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/5] batman-adv: Start new development cycle

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]

Message-ID: <Y+ITwsu5Lg5DxgRt@unreal>
Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2023 11:02:58 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Sven Eckelmann <sven@...fation.org>
Cc:     b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>,
        kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] batman-adv: Start new development cycle

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:38:07AM +0100, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> On Friday, 3 February 2023 09:29:50 CET Jiri Pirko wrote:
> [...]
> > Why kernel version is not enough for you? My point is, why to maintain
> > internal driver version alongside with the kernel version?
> [...]
> > >Also note that we can't do a simple kernel version to year
> > >notation mapping in userspace in batctl. OpenWrt uses the most
> > >recent Linux LTS release. But might feature a backport of a more
> > >recent batman-adv which is newer than the one this stable kernel
> > >would provide. Or people also often use Debian stable but compile
> > >and use the latest batman-adv version with it.
> > 
> > Yeah, for out of tree driver, have whatever.
> 
> A while back, my personal opinion changed after there were various Linux 
> developers/maintainers were trying to either remove it or wondering about this 
> bump. The idea which I've proposed was to:
> 
> * still ship the "backports" like out-of-tree tarball with a module version - 
>   but directly in its "compat" code
> * continue to use in projects (which for whatever reason cannot use the in-
>   kernel implementation) a version which represents their upstream backports 
>   tarball + their (patch) revision: Something like "2022.0-openwrt-7"
> * for the in-kernel module, just return either 
> 
>   - remove the version information completely from the kernel module 
>     MODULE_VERSION + drop BATADV_ATTR_VERSION + modifying batctl to fetch that 
>     from uname(). But of course, that would break old batctl versions [1]
>   - or by setting BATADV_SOURCE_VERSION to UTS_RELEASE (+suffix?) or 
>     UTS_VERSION
> 
> 
> But this wasn't well received when mentioning it to Simon+Linus (but I could 
> misremember the persons involved here).

In cases where you can prove real userspace breakage, we simply stop to
update module versions.

Thanks

> 
> Kind regards,
> 	Sven
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201205085604.1e3fcaee@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.DHCP.thefacebook.com