netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] ethtool: Introduce WAKE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:15:37 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
 Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
Cc: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Broadcom internal kernel review list
 <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
 Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King
 <linux@...linux.org.uk>, opendmb@...il.com, justin.chen@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] ethtool: Introduce WAKE_MDA

On 10/12/23 14:18, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> But we should clearly define what we expect in terms of ordering and
>>> maybe try to enforce it in the core. Can we make the rxnfc call return
>>> -EBUSY or something and an extack message if WAKE_FILTER has not been
>>> enabled first?
>>
>> It might make sense to do it the other way around, that is you must install
>> filters first and if none are installed by the time we enable WAKE_FILTER in
>> .set_wol(), we error out with -EINVAL?
> 
> I was thinking the other way around would be easier for the core to
> enforce. When inserting an rxnfc, it can do an ethtool.get_wol(ndev)
> and check WAKE_FILTER is set. That seems simpler than doing a
> get_rxnfc() and having to look through the results and try to figure
> out which are for WoL?

What you propose would be simpler, but I believe it would be more 
logical to:

- install filter(s)
- set ethtool WAKE_FILTER

as the latter acts as a "commit", until that point the filters are 
installed, but may not be effective unless WAKE_FILTER is set and gets 
translated into the appropriate Wake-on-LAN enable bits. Of course 
nothing prevents you from doing the reverse or installing filters after 
setting WAkE_FILTER as long as the system does not go into suspend in 
between, everything should be working.

> 
> Anyway, you seem to be volunteering to implement this, so either is
> fine for me, so long as we do have some central enforcement.

Yes, patches will follow, thanks!
-- 
Florian

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4221 bytes)