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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20240826080900.57210004@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 08:09:00 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Alexander Lobakin
 <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 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

On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 11:19:49 +0300 Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 21/08/2024 18:43, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > 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.
> >   
> 
> This is a nice history lesson, so before the features infrastructure the
> feature bits were considered as "ABI"?
> 
> I couldn't find a point in time where they were actually defined in the
> uapi files?

Keep in mind that include/uapi was introduced around v3.7, before 
that IIUC everything under include/linux that wasn't protected by
ifdef __KERNEL__ was uAPI. So all of include/linux/netdev_features.h