netdev - Re: [patch net-next RFC 3/3] switchdev: introduce deferred variants of obj

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]

Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 2015 15:25:41 +0200
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, idosch@...lanox.com,
	Elad Raz <eladr@...lanox.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 3/3] switchdev: introduce deferred variants
 of obj_add/del helpers

Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:21:44PM CEST, gerlitz.or@...il.com wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>> Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:28:58AM CEST, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
>>>Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 08:45:58AM CEST, gerlitz.or@...il.com wrote:
>>>>On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>
>>>>This introduced a regression to the 2-phase commit scheme, since the
>>>>prepare commit can fail
>>>>and that would go un-noticed toward the upper layer, agree?
>
>>>Well, no. This still does the transaction for all lower devices in one
>>>go. No change in that.
>
>> Now I get it, yes you are right. But currently there is no code in
>> kernel which would control retval of deferred attr_set or obj_add/del
>
>I am not sure to understand your reply. You are saying that when the deferred
>procedures complete (e.g fail in the prepare phase) they can't actually let
>the upper layer to realize that this change isn't possible? this is
>exactly the bug.

Correct. But check the code. Callers of current deferred variants do
not care about the retval. Therefore this is not a regression.

It makes sense in my opinion. If you are a called and you explicitly say to
defer the operation, you cannot expect retval.
--
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