On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 01:34 +0100, Maciej Żenczykowski wrote: > >> I can send updates to other drivers, even though it's rather pointless > >> to update 1G drivers at this point for example. Please let me know, > >> but I'd prefer to do this in follow-up patches outside this first > >> patch series. > > [...] > > > > They should be changed to ensure they reject setting any of the high > > advertising flags, but it's not urgent. > > if old drivers advertised a get/set_bits function while new drivers > advertised a get/set_new_bits function, > you could not updated any old drivers, and simply take care of > rejecting invalid bits in core, by calling set_new_bits if provided, > if not, rejecting bad bits and calling set_bits if no bad bits were > set. We've never checked that the reserved fields are zero before, and I think there are still drivers that don't fully validate the existing 32 bits. So while I think drivers should fully validate the advertising flags, userland generally can't assume they do. And therefore I don't think it's worth adding complexity to the ethtool core that only partly fixes this. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings This sentence contradicts itself - no actually it doesn't.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
