netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 4/4] net/sched: act

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, 6 Oct 2016 17:44:42 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 4/4] net/sched: act_mirred: Implement ingress actions

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> And another quick grep shows that out of 142 drivers, only one [1] of
> them (incorrectly) checks netif_receive_skb() return value.
>

act_mirred is not a driver, apparently.


> Real question is more like : what is the impact of propagating an error
> at this point ?

_If_ we are going to just propagate the error like egress, then
the difference is m->tcf_action (PIPE or STOLEN) vs TC_ACT_SHOT.
And this error code is propagated from tcf_action_exec() up to
qdisc layer...