From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000, e1000e valid-addr fixes Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:15:35 +0200 Message-ID: <20071024011535.GZ30533@stusta.de> References: <471E2AD0.1000500@intel.com> <471E5C21.8030908@garzik.org> <20071023212026.GF7793@redhat.com> <20071023.145339.55504234.davem@davemloft.net> <471E9801.2000006@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: David Miller , davej@redhat.com, auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com, ajax@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Return-path: Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:40274 "EHLO mailhub.stusta.mhn.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752454AbXJXBPI (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:15:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <471E9801.2000006@garzik.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 08:55:29PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Actually, looking over the code I see obvious bugs in the logic: > > An invalid ethernet address should not cause device loading to fail, > because the user is given the opportunity to supply a MAC address via > userspace (ifconfig or whatever) before the interface goes up. > > I just created the attached -bug fix- patch as illustration, though I have > not committed it, waiting for comment. >... Is there a good reason why we have such checks duplicated in the drivers (with every driver doing it differently...) instead of doing it in net/core/dev.c? > Jeff cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed