netdev - Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH net-next v21 3/4] openvswitch: 802.1AD Flow handling, actions, vlan parsing, netlink attributes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160906123428.GL31705@egarver>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2016 08:34:28 -0400
From:   Eric Garver <e@...g.me>
To:     Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Cc:     pravin shelar <pshelar@....org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        ovs dev <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
        Thomas F Herbert <thomasfherbert@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH net-next v21 3/4] openvswitch: 802.1AD Flow
 handling, actions, vlan parsing, netlink attributes

On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 01:05:46PM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 13:30:12 -0400, Eric Garver wrote:
> > Would a BUG_ON(!(encap && in_encap)) be better?
> 
> Please don't crash the kernel for something that could very well
> continue without problems. Use WARN_ON at most.

Thanks Jiri. WARN_ON_ONCE() is more appropriate for what I was looking
for.

> And if you go that way, WARN_ON_ONCE or rate limiting seems to be even
> more appropriate, because if this triggers, it's quite possible it will
> trigger repeatedly and the resulting log flood would practically make
> the machine useless anyway.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  Jiri