netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/6] netdev_features: remove unused __UNUSED_NETIF_F

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fc659137-c6f0-42bf-8af3-56f4f0deae1b@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:24:24 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Xuan Zhuo
	<xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Willem de Bruijn
	<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
	<nex.sw.ncis.osdt.itp.upstreaming@...el.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/6] netdev_features: remove unused
 __UNUSED_NETIF_F_1

From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 17:43:16 +0200

> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 5:07 PM Alexander Lobakin
> <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> NETIF_F_NO_CSUM was removed in 3.2-rc2 by commit 34324dc2bf27
>> ("net: remove NETIF_F_NO_CSUM feature bit") and became
>> __UNUSED_NETIF_F_1. It's not used anywhere in the code.
>> Remove this bit waste.
>>
>> It wasn't needed to rename the flag instead of removing it as
>> netdev features are not uAPI/ABI. Ethtool passes their names
>> and values separately with no fixed positions and the userspace
>> Ethtool code doesn't have any hardcoded feature names/bits, so
>> that new Ethtool will work on older kernels and vice versa.
> 
> This is only true for recent enough ethtool (>= 3.4)
> 
> You might refine the changelog to not claim this "was not needed".
> 
> Back in 2011 (and linux-2.6.39) , this was needed for sure.
> 
> I am not sure we have a documented requirement about ethtool versions.

But how then Ethtool < 3.4 works with the latest kernels? I believe we
already moved some bits and/or removed some features or it's not true?

I could try building it, not sure it would build though. How do you
think then we should approach this? Maybe document the requirement?
I don't think we should leave the features as they are and sit with no
bits available only to support ancient Ethtool versions.

Thanks,
Olek