netdev - Re: [PATCH] return the right retcode when add a unreachable route

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 08 Jul 2014 19:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	lucien.xin@...il.com
Cc:	cwang@...pensource.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] return the right retcode when add a unreachable route

From: lucien xin <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:51:02 +0800

> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> This would potentially break user-space applications.
> 
> yes, you are right. if I only handle the -ESRCH , like:
> 
> -       return __fib_lookup(net, flp, res);
> +
> +       err = __fib_lookup(net, flp, res);
> +       if(err == -ESRCH)
> +               return -ENETUNREACH;
> +
> +       return err;
> 
> I think it will be ok, after all, it looks confused that err is *No
> such process* when add a route.

It doesn't matter, if applications want to work on all kernels they
will test whatever error code is being provided now.

Therefore, by changing it you will break those applications.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html