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: <87il61g7fz.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:21:20 +0100 From: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no> To: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] usbnet: assign unique random MAC Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com> writes: > On 16.11.23 13:39, Bjørn Mork wrote: >> Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com> writes: >> >>> A module parameter to go back to the old behavior >>> is included. >> Is this really required? If we add it now then we can never get rid >> of >> it. Why not try without, and add this back if/when somebody complains >> about the new behaviour? >> I believe there's a fair chance no one will notice or complain. And >> we >> have much cleaner code and one module param less. > > Isn't it a bit evil to change behavior? Only if someone actually depend on the old behaviour. And I think there's a fair chance no one does. I don't propose forcing this change on anyone. Only to try and see if we can apply if without any force involved. Note that the module parameter solution also will be a breaking change for anyone depending on the current behaviour. If you want to avoid that, then you need to invert the logic. And then you might as well drop the whole change. > Do you think I should make a different version for stable > with the logic for retaining the old behavior inverted? I assumed this was unsuitable for stable backports. Is there any reason to backport it? Bjørn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists