linux-kernel - Re: [net v3 PATCH] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw_new: fix error handling in cpsw_ndo_vlan_rx_kill

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]

Message-Id: <20200825.093603.2026695844604591106.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     m-karicheri2@...com
Cc:     kuba@...nel.org, grygorii.strashko@...com, nsekhar@...com,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net v3 PATCH] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw_new: fix error handling
 in cpsw_ndo_vlan_rx_kill_vid()

From: Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:01:00 -0400

> +	ret = cpsw_ale_del_vlan(cpsw->ale, vid, 0);
> +	if (ret)
> +		dev_err(priv->dev, "%s: failed %d: ret %d\n",
> +			__func__, __LINE__, ret);
> +	ret = cpsw_ale_del_ucast(cpsw->ale, priv->mac_addr,
> +				 HOST_PORT_NUM, ALE_VLAN, vid);
> +	if (ret)
> +		dev_err(priv->dev, "%s: failed %d: ret %d\n",
> +			__func__, __LINE__, ret);
> +	ret = cpsw_ale_del_mcast(cpsw->ale, priv->ndev->broadcast,
> +				 0, ALE_VLAN, vid);
> +	if (ret)
> +		dev_err(priv->dev, "%s: failed %d: ret %d\n",
> +			__func__, __LINE__, ret);
>  	cpsw_ale_flush_multicast(cpsw->ale, ALE_PORT_HOST, vid);

These error messages are extremely unhelpful.  You're calling three
different functions, yet emitting basically the same __func__ for
each of those cases.  No user can send you a useful bug report
immediately if they just have func and line.

Please get rid of the "__func__" and "__line__" stuff completely, it's
never advisable to ever use that in my opinion.  Instead, describe
which delete operation failed, optionally with the error return.