netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/5] bridge: propagate BR_ flags updates through sysfs to switchdev

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:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:07:40 -0700
From:   Igor Mitsyanko <igor.mitsyanko.os@...ntenna.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        sergey.matyukevich.os@...ntenna.com, smaksimenko@...ntenna.com,
        ashevchenko@...ntenna.com, dlebed@...ntenna.com, jiri@...nulli.us,
        ivecera@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/5] bridge: propagate BR_ flags updates through
 sysfs to switchdev

On 03/10/2018 08:38 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
>> +             return 0;
>> +
>> +     err = br_switchdev_set_port_flag(p, flags, mask);
>> +     if (err)
>> +             return err;
> 
> You might want to consider the br_warn() in
> br_switchdev_set_port_flag(). Do we want to spam the kernel log?  Or
> should store_flag() do some validation before calling
> br_switchdev_set_port_flag()?
> 
>          Andrew
> 

Is there any convention for that in Linux? While I would agree that 
simply returning a error code is sufficient in this case, another user 
of br_switchdev_set_port_flag() is a netlink interface, aren't they 
supposed to be an equivalent? That is, if netlink prints into kernel 
log, sysfs should do that too?