netdev - Re: [RFC v2 3/6] i40e: use extack for bpf errors

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: <20190228190645.34c21d8b@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Feb 2019 19:06:45 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/6] i40e: use extack for bpf errors

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:54:38 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> @@ -12140,12 +12144,14 @@ static int i40e_xdp(struct net_device *dev,
>  	struct i40e_netdev_priv *np = netdev_priv(dev);
>  	struct i40e_vsi *vsi = np->vsi;
>  
> -	if (vsi->type != I40E_VSI_MAIN)
> +	if (vsi->type != I40E_VSI_MAIN) {
> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(xdp->extack, "XDP not allowed on VF");

Is that right?  Intel tends to have separate drivers for VFs, I think
the i40evf got renamed to iavf.

I think it would be a good idea to CC maintainers on the driver patches.

>  		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
>