netdev - Re: [PATCH] [NET] [ISDN]: Do not validate ISDN net device address prior to interface-up

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: <4801C3C9.4070408@trash.net>
Date:	Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:26:49 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	isdn4linux@...tserv.isdn4linux.de, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [NET] [ISDN]: Do not validate ISDN net device address
 prior to interface-up

Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:05:08AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> ...
>   
>> In my opinion a proper error code like EADDRNOTAVAIL is enough, we
>> have thousands of checks that might make things fail, should we
>> add a printk to every one of those?
>>     
>
> IMHO yes - but only when "the functionality" is changed causing
> regressions like this.

This one is simply a bug, not a functional change.

>  BTW, I've assisted some similar case in
> bugzilla, and I guess users will still ask for an explanation after
> this error code change.
>   

Well, I don't have particulary strong feelings about this, but
I think adding a printk to one out of thousands of possible
errors won't help much.

What would be nice is some extended error reporting for netlink.

--
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