netdev - Re: [PATCH] udp: Add support for getsockopt(..., ..., UDP

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:   Fri, 26 Mar 2021 11:25:27 +0100
From:   Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@...le.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] udp: Add support for getsockopt(..., ..., UDP_GRO, ...,
 ...)

Hi,

> On 26. Mar 2021, at 10:36, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 20:56 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote:
>> From: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@...le.com>
>> 
>> Support for UDP_GRO was added in the past but the implementation for
>> getsockopt was missed which did lead to an error when we tried to
>> retrieve the setting for UDP_GRO. This patch adds the missing switch
>> case for UDP_GRO
>> 
>> Fixes: e20cf8d3f1f7 ("udp: implement GRO for plain UDP sockets.")
>> Signed-off-by: Norman Maurer <norman_maurer@...le.com>
> 
> The patch LGTM, but please cc the blamed commit author in when you add
> a 'Fixes' tag (me in this case ;)

Noted for the next time… 

> 
> Also please specify a target tree, either 'net' or 'net-next', in the
> patch subj. Being declared as a fix, this should target 'net'.
> 

Ok noted

> One thing you can do to simplifies the maintainer's life, would be post
> a v2 with the correct tag (and ev. obsolete this patch in patchwork).

I am quite new to contribute patches to the kernel so I am not sure how I would “obsolete” this patch and make a v2. If you can give me some pointers I am happy to do so.


> 
> Side note: I personally think this is more a new feature (is adds
> getsockopt support for UDP_GRO) than a fix, so I would not have added
> the 'Fixes' tag and I would have targeted net-next, but it's just my
> opinion.

I see… For me it seemed more like a bug as I can’t think of a reason why only setsockopt should be supported for an option but not getsockopt. But it may be just my opinion :)

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paolo
> 

Thanks
Norman