netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] net: dsa: Rename IFLA_DSA_MASTER to IFLA_DSA

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: <20231012193054.4c6759fe@hermes.local>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 19:30:54 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, 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>, Broadcom internal kernel review list
 <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, "open list:ARM/Mediatek SoC
 support" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC
 support" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] net: dsa: Rename IFLA_DSA_MASTER to
 IFLA_DSA_CONDUIT

On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 02:13:45 +0300
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:

> > I don't know if it would be acceptable in the kernel UAPI but what
> > we did in DPDK for similar situation to cause warning on use of deprecated value.
> > 
> > /**
> >  *  Macro to mark macros and defines scheduled for removal
> >  */
> > #if defined(RTE_CC_GCC) || defined(RTE_CC_CLANG)
> > #define RTE_PRAGMA(x)  _Pragma(#x)
> > #define RTE_PRAGMA_WARNING(w) RTE_PRAGMA(GCC warning #w)
> > #define RTE_DEPRECATED(x)  RTE_PRAGMA_WARNING(#x is deprecated)
> > #else
> > #define RTE_DEPRECATED(x)
> > #endif
> > 
> > ...
> > #define RTE_DEV_WHITELISTED \
> > 	RTE_DEPRECATED(RTE_DEV_WHITELISTED) RTE_DEV_ALLOWED
> > #define RTE_DEV_BLACKLISTED \
> > 	RTE_DEPRECATED(RTE_DEV_BLACKLISTED) RTE_DEV_BLOCKED  
> 
> What precedent exists in terms of intentionally breaking kernel headers?
> If none, would this create one?

It would cause warning, and most applications builds don't fail because of warning.
Kernel already has __diag_warn macro which is similar, but see no usages of it.
My comment was more of a "what if", probably not practical since it would just
fuel lots of angry user feedback.