netdev - Re: r8169: Link only up after 16 s (A link change request failed with some changes committed already. Interface enp3s0 may have been left with an inconsistent configuration, please check.)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 11:04:43 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
        Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: r8169: Link only up after 16 s (A link change request failed
 with some changes committed already. Interface enp3s0 may have been left
 with an inconsistent configuration, please check.)

On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 19:55 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 24.05.2019 17:14, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > I applied the simple change below to `net/core/rtnetlink.c`.
> > 
> >                 if (err < 0)
> > -                       net_warn_ratelimited("A link change request failed with some changes committed already. Interface %s may have been left with an inconsistent configuration, please check.\n",
> > -                                            dev->name);
> > +                       net_warn_ratelimited("A link change request failed with some changes committed already (err = %i). Interface %s may have been left with an inconsistent configuration, please check.\n",
> > +                                            dev->name, err);
> > 
> > I get different results each time.
> > 
> > -304123904
> > -332128256
> > 
> > Any idea, how that can happen?
> > 
> Instead of %i you should use %d, and the order of arguments needs to be reversed.

Doesn't the patch generate a compilation warning?