netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 22/22] ovpn: add basic ethtool support

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: <25cc6fba-d8e5-46c0-8c16-f71373328e7d@openvpn.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 16:42:03 +0100
From: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@...il.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 22/22] ovpn: add basic ethtool support

On 05/03/2024 00:04, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 04:09:13PM +0100, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...nvpn.net>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/ovpn/main.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ovpn/main.c b/drivers/net/ovpn/main.c
>> index 95a94ccc99c1..9dfcf2580659 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ovpn/main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ovpn/main.c
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>>   #include "ovpnstruct.h"
>>   #include "packet.h"
>>   
>> +#include <linux/ethtool.h>
>>   #include <linux/genetlink.h>
>>   #include <linux/module.h>
>>   #include <linux/moduleparam.h>
>> @@ -83,6 +84,36 @@ static const struct net_device_ops ovpn_netdev_ops = {
>>   	.ndo_get_stats64        = dev_get_tstats64,
>>   };
>>   
>> +static int ovpn_get_link_ksettings(struct net_device *dev,
>> +				   struct ethtool_link_ksettings *cmd)
>> +{
>> +	ethtool_convert_legacy_u32_to_link_mode(cmd->link_modes.supported, 0);
>> +	ethtool_convert_legacy_u32_to_link_mode(cmd->link_modes.advertising, 0);
>> +	cmd->base.speed	= SPEED_1000;
>> +	cmd->base.duplex = DUPLEX_FULL;
>> +	cmd->base.port = PORT_TP;
>> +	cmd->base.phy_address = 0;
>> +	cmd->base.transceiver = XCVR_INTERNAL;
>> +	cmd->base.autoneg = AUTONEG_DISABLE;
> 
> Why? It is a virtual device. Speed and duplex is meaningless. You
> could run this over FDDI, HIPPI, or RFC 1149? So why PORT_TP?

To be honest, I couldn't find any description to help me with deciding 
what to set there and I just used a value I saw in other Ethernet drivers.

Do you have any recommendation?
For the other fields: do you think they make sense? The speed value is 
always debatable...The actual speed depends on the transport interface 
and there might be multiple involved. Maybe SPEED_UNKNOWN is more 
appropriate?

> 
>> +static void ovpn_get_drvinfo(struct net_device *dev,
>> +			     struct ethtool_drvinfo *info)
>> +{
>> +	strscpy(info->driver, DRV_NAME, sizeof(info->driver));
>> +	strscpy(info->version, DRV_VERSION, sizeof(info->version));
> 
> Please leave version untouched. The ethtool core will then fill it in
> with something useful.

will do!

> 
>> +	strscpy(info->bus_info, "ovpn", sizeof(info->bus_info));
> 
> This is also not accurate. There is no bus involved.

Should I just leave it empty then?

My concern is that a user expects $something and it will crash on my 
empty string. But if empty is allowed, I will just go with it.


Regards,

-- 
Antonio Quartulli
OpenVPN Inc.