linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: bridge: break if __br_mdb

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:   Thu, 18 May 2017 11:45:21 -0400
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        "moderated list\:ETHERNET BRIDGE" <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: bridge: break if __br_mdb_del    fails

Hi Nikolay,

Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> writes:

>> OK good to know. That intention wasn't obvious. I can make __br_mdb_del
>> return void instead? What about the rest of the patchset if I do so?
>
> If you make it return void we will not be able to return proper error value
> when doing a single operation (the else case). About the rest I see only some
> minor style issues, I'll comment on the respective patches. Another minor nit is 
> using switch() instead of if/else for the message types but that is really up to 
> you, I don't mind either way. :-)

Ho OK I understand better the batch vs single delete operation now.
__br_mdb_do hardly makes sense now, because we don't know which case we
are handling... But factorizing br_mdb_do still makes sense. I'll come
up with something.

Thanks,

        Vivien