netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: warn user when 802.3ad speed is unknown

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: <20170609145118.GA84776@C02RW35GFVH8>
Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:51:18 -0400
From:   Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
To:     Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, j.vosburgh@...il.com, vfalico@...il.com,
        thibaut.collet@...nd.com, linville@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: warn user when 802.3ad speed is unknown

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:39:06PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 09/06/2017 à 16:23, Andrew Lunn a écrit :
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:34:43PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> >> Make it explicit in the log.
> >>
> >> Suggested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
> > 
> > Hi Nicolas
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> > 
> > How often is this called? It seems like it is used by
> Good question! ;-)
> 
> > ad_port_selection_logic, which has the comment:
> > 
> > 	is called in the inititalization (after all the handshkes),
> > 	and after every lacpdu receive (if selected is off)
> > 
> > I just wonder if this should be rate limited?
> So using net_warn_ratelimited()?

Why not just use pr_warn_once()?

It may go unnoticed at first, but that seems like a decent option compared to
spamming log files.

> Displaying this message continuously in the log, even at a low rate, seems not
> the best things to do. The first time seems enough, but it would require more
> code for that. Is it not over-engineering?
> The ideal solution would be a BUILD_BUG_ON(), but I don't see how to make that.
>