netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] rtnetlink: Allow setting IFLA_PERM

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: <20250217095150.12cdec05@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:51:50 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman
 <horms@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] rtnetlink: Allow setting IFLA_PERM_ADDRESS at
 device creation time

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:13:53 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:45:22 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:  
> >> Eric suggested[0] allowing user-settable values for dev->perm_addr at
> >> device creation time, instead of mucking about with netdevsim to get a
> >> virtual device with a permanent address set.  
> >
> > I vote no. Complicating the core so that its easier for someone 
> > to write a unit test is the wrong engineering trade off.
> > Use a VM or netdevsim, that's what they are for.  
> 
> Hmm, and you don't see any value in being able to specify a permanent
> identifier for virtual devices? That bit was not just motivated
> reasoning on my part... :)

I can't think of any :( Specifying an address is already possible.
Permanent address is a property of the hardware platform.
Virtual devices OTOH are primarily used by containers, 
which are ephemeral by design. At least that's my mental model.