netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] macvlan: introduce macvlan_dev_real

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: <20131114.170358.941846928393883945.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:03:58 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	mkubecek@...e.cz
Cc:	vyasevich@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net,
	john.r.fastabend@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] macvlan: introduce macvlan_dev_real_dev()
 helper function

From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:57:57 +0100

> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:03:19AM -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> On 11/14/2013 09:00 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
>> >+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MACVLAN)
>> >+static inline struct net_device *
>> >+macvlan_dev_real_dev(const struct net_device *dev)
>> >+{
>> >+	struct macvlan_dev *macvlan = netdev_priv(dev);
>> >+
>> >+	return macvlan->lowerdev;
>> >+}
>> >+#else
>> >+static inline struct net_device *
>> >+macvlan_dev_real_dev(const struct net_device *dev)
>> >+{
>> >+	return NULL;
>> >+}
>> >+#endif
>> >+
>> 
>> You may want to do the same here as was done for
>> vlan_dev_real_dev(). This function is not intended to be called
>> blindly and should always
>> be called after netif_is_macvlan().
> 
> I'm not sure. It makes sense from the developer point of view: if we
> find an inconsistency which must be caused by a bug in kernel code, do
> panic so that the bug is found and fixed as soon as possible. However,
> I remember a discussion where the point was that BUG() and BUG_ON()
> should only be used if there is no way to recover. From this point of
> view, WARN or WARN_ONCE might be better choice - but I'm not strictly
> opposed to BUG().

At least for the time being use BUG(), to be consistent with the same
way how VLAN handles this situation.

Thanks.
--
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