netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2] ss: Tell user about -EOPNOTSUPP for SOCK

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

Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0E9i0s0ocSyYhEjODnVVQVBPOfbepvORAhT9gi9Qqz6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 May 2016 11:29:42 +0900
From:	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
To:	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ss: Tell user about -EOPNOTSUPP for SOCK_DESTROY

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:24 AM, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> As I mentioned we can print the unsupported once or per socket matched and
> with the socket params. e.g.,
>
> +               } else if (errno == EOPNOTSUPP) {
> +                       printf("Operation not supported for:\n");
> +                       inet_show_sock(h, diag_arg->f, diag_arg->protocol);
>
> Actively suppressing all error messages is just wrong. I get the flooding
> issue so I'm fine with just printing it once.

I disagree, but then I'm the one who wrote it in the first place, so
you wouldn't expect me to agree. :-) Let's see what Stephen says.