netdev - Re: broken behaviour of TC filter delete

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: <d77cae55-e97c-6dc9-ef4f-ec697d8fee4f@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:48:17 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: broken behaviour of TC filter delete

On 2018-08-25 9:02 a.m., Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 08:11:07PM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com wrote:
>
>>> ENOENT seems to be more logical to return when there's no more filter to delete.
>>
>> Yeah, at least we should keep ENOENT for compatibility.
>>
>> The bug here is chain 0 is gone after the last filter is gone,
>> so when you delete the filter again, it treats it as you specify
>> chain 0 which does not exist, so it hits EINVAL before ENOENT.
> 
> I understand. My concern is about consistency with other chains. Perhaps
> -ENOENT for all chains in this case would be doable. What do you think?
>

ENOENT with extack describing whether chain or filter not found.

cheers,
jamal