netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/1] bridge: return error code when deleting Vlan

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: <85d15rvxze.fsf@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:00:53 -0400
From:   Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/1] bridge: return error code when deleting Vlan

Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> writes:


[...]

>>> Why do you want to return the error code here? Walking the code paths
>>> seems like ENOENT or err from switchdev_port_obj_del are the 2 error
>>> possibilities.
>> 
>> For example, if you attempt to delete a non-existing vlan on a port,
>> the current code succeeds and also sends event :
>> 
>> rtnetlink_rcv_msg
>>     rtnl_bridge_dellink
>>        br_dellink
>>           br_afspec
>>              br_vlan_info
>> 
>> int br_dellink(..)
>> {
>>   ...
>>   err = br_afspec()
>>   if (err == 0)
>>       br_ifinfo_notify(RTM_NEWLINK, p);
>> }
>> 
>> This is misleading, so a proper errcode has to be produced.
>> 
>
> True, but you also change the expected behaviour because now a user can
> clear all vlans with one request (1 - 4094), and after the change that
> will fail with a partial delete if some vlan was missing.

Nikolay, would you like to have a crack at fixing this?

> This has been the behaviour forever and some script might depend on it.
> Also IMO, and as David also mentioned, doing a partial delete is not good.