netdev - Re: [iproute PATCH 1/2] ipaddress: Simplify vf

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: <20160701175001.GG19370@orbyte.nwl.cc>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:50:01 +0200
From:	Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
To:	Greg Rose <gvrose8192@...il.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemming@...cade.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [iproute PATCH 1/2] ipaddress: Simplify vf_info parsing

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 03:36:09PM -0700, Greg Rose wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 03:00:08PM -0700, Greg Rose wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> wrote:
> >> > Not sure whether I misinterpret commit 7b8179c780a1a, but it looks
> >> > overly complicated. Instead rely upon parse_rtattr_nested() to assign
> >> > the relevant pointer if requested rtattr fields are present.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if newer iproute2 utilities are supposed to work on older
> >> kernels but if it is you may want to check this against a 2.6.32
> >> kernel.
> >
> > Yes, it is supposed to. Actually I tried, but the old RHEL6 kernel I
> > used didn't export the VF list at all and then I lost motivation.
> >
> > I didn't check all earlier versions of 7b8179c780a1a, was there a stage
> > when it looked like what I'm changing it to?
> 
> I don't think so but your patch looks correct - I mean it looks like
> it should work.
> 
> It's been 5 years since I wrote that original patch and my memory
> isn't so great as to why I didn't just do as your patch does but I
> think it had something to do with not all drivers reporting a spoof
> check value.  However, your patch should handle that case so I see no
> reason not to accept it.  Unfortunately I don't have time or the
> resources at the moment to check it on an older kernel.

So can I count that as your Acked-by? ;)
Looks like Stephen hesitates to accept this patch due to the discussion
it provoked.

Cheers, Phil