netdev - Re: [RFC] add extack errors for iptoken

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: <20210530194234.2fd8b269@hermes.local>
Date:   Sun, 30 May 2021 19:42:34 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Hongren Zheng <i@...ithal.me>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] add extack errors for iptoken

On Sat, 29 May 2021 14:31:56 +0800
Hongren Zheng <i@...ithal.me> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 08:55:08PM +0800, Hongren Zheng wrote:
> > > Perhaps the following (NOT TESTED) kernel patch will show you how such error messages
> > > could be added.  
> > 
> > Since this patch has been tested, and we have waited a long time for
> > comments and there is no further response, I wonder if it is the time
> > to submit this patch to the kernel.  
> 
> Is there any updates?
> 
> I'm not quite familiar with "RFC" procedure. Should I send this patch to
> netdev mailing list with title "[PATCH] add extack errors for iptoken" now
> (I suppose not), or wait for Stephen Hemminger sending it, or wait for
> more comments?
> 

The kernel changes is already upstream with this commit for 5.12 kernel

commit 3583a4e8d77d44697a21437227dd53fc6e7b2cb5
Author: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Date:   Wed Apr 7 08:59:12 2021 -0700

    ipv6: report errors for iftoken via netlink extack
    
    Setting iftoken can fail for several different reasons but there
    and there was no report to user as to the cause. Add netlink
    extended errors to the processing of the request.
    
    This requires adding additional argument through rtnl_af_ops
    set_link_af callback.
    
    Reported-by: Hongren Zheng <li@...ithal.me>
    Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
    Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
    Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>