linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: qualcomm: rmnet: Allow partial updates of IFLA

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7291b240853fbf1fc6dbdc30fe4f6743@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:04:13 -0600
From:   subashab@...eaurora.org
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
        Sean Tranchetti <stranche@...eaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Daniele Palmas <dnlplm@...il.com>,
        Aleksander Morgado <aleksander@...ksander.es>,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: qualcomm: rmnet: Allow partial updates of IFLA_FLAGS

> I recently posted a patch to iproute2 extending the rmnet link handling
> to handle IFLA_RMNET_FLAGS, in the discussion that followed this 
> subject
> came up. So nothing is broken, it's just that the current logic doesn't
> make sense and I wanted to attempt to fix it before we start to use it
> commonly distributed userspace software (iproute2, libqmi etc)

With this patch, passing IFLA_RMNET_FLAGS in newlink vs changelink will 
have
different behavior. Is that inline with your expectations.

I checked VLAN and it seems to be using the same behavior for both the 
operations.
While the patch itself is fine, I don't think its right to have 
different
behavior for the operations.

> Okay, please let me know what hoops you want me to jump through. I just
> want the subject concluded so that I can respin my iproute2 patch
> according to what we decide here.

My suggestion is to have the subject prefix as [PATCH net-next] since 
this
is an enhancement rather than fixing something which is broken.