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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20160518115108.46fabd49@xeon-e3>
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2016 11:51:08 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:	subashab@...eaurora.org
Cc:	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ss: Tell user about -EOPNOTSUPP for
 SOCK_DESTROY

On Tue, 17 May 2016 12:35:53 -0600
subashab@...eaurora.org wrote:

> On 2016-05-16 20:29, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Hi Lorenzo
> 
> Would it be acceptable to have a separate column which displays the 
> result of the sock destroy operation per socket.
> State    ... Killed
> ESTAB         Y
> TIME_WAIT     N
> 
> If it is not supported from kernel, maybe print U (unsupported) for 
> this.

When you guys come to a conclusion, then I will review the result.
Right now neither solution looks good.