netdev - Re: [PATCH net] fib_rules: return 0 directly if an exactly same rule exists when NLM_F

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: <20190601093244.GB1783@kroah.com>
Date:   Sat, 1 Jun 2019 02:32:44 -0700
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>, astrachan@...gle.com,
        liuhangbin@...il.com, Linux NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        mateusz.bajorski@...ia.com, dsa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] fib_rules: return 0 directly if an exactly same rule
 exists when NLM_F_EXCL not supplied

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 06:43:42PM -0700, Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
> FYI, this userspace visible change in behaviour breaks Android.
> 
> We rely on being able to add a rule and either have a dup be created
> (in which case we'll remove it later) or have it fail with EEXIST (in
> which case we won't remove it later).
> 
> Returning 0 makes atomically changing a rule difficult.
> 
> Please revert.

That's crazy, but makes sense in an odd way :)

And it explains why my "fix up of the patch" also breaks things, both
patches need to be reverted in the stable trees.  Do you need me to make
a patch to revert this in Linus's tree now, or can you do that?  Just
asking for an existing commit to be reverted is usually a bit harder as
that's not most maintainer's workflow (I know it's not mine.)

thanks,

gre gk-h