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]

Date:	Thu, 19 May 2016 08:06:15 -0600
From:	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
	Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ss: Tell user about -EOPNOTSUPP for SOCK_DESTROY

On 5/18/16 10:12 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 22:05 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>
>> You think it is ok to send a request to the kernel, the kernel says "I
>> can't do it" and the command says nothing to the user? That is current
>> behavior. How on Earth is that acceptable?
>
> I don't know. Tell me what is acceptable on a 'dump many sockets' and
> some of them can be killed, but not all of them.
>
> What I do know is that you sent totally buggy patches.

buggy patches? not silently dropping a failure makes for a buggy patch?

>
> If you want to 'fix' something, please send a patch that we can agree
> on, ie not breaking existing scripts.

got it. Google does not care about users; don't un-suppress failures.