netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/8] bonding: Check return of dev_set

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]

Message-ID: <485F8546.9030209@trash.net>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:13:10 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Wang Chen <wangchen@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Joe Eykholt <jeykholt@...co.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jgarzik@...ox.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, fubar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/8] bonding: Check return of dev_set_promiscuity/allmulti

Wang Chen wrote:
> Joe Eykholt said the following on 2008-6-22 2:19:
>> If netdev->promiscuity overflows, shouldn't there be a WARN_ON or BUG_ON
>> that catches that?  Either someone forgot to clean up, or much less likely,
>> the counter needs to be widened.  It isn't necessarily the current caller's
>> fault, but some indication of the problem is better than nothing.
>>
> 
> If promiscuity overflows, dev_set_promiscuity will printk(KERN_WARNING) now.
> Compare to that, WARN_ON has more information about modules info and dump stack.
> But I think printk has enough information to indicate the problem and we
> don't need WARN_ON.
> How do you think?


WARN_ON doesn't provide any useful information here, if the counter
overflowed, its because *something else* increased it by too much.


--
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