netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] vsock/vmci: convert VMCI error code to -ENOMEM on receive

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, 31 Mar 2023 09:12:58 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
Cc:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...edance.com>,
        Bryan Tan <bryantan@...are.com>,
        Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@...are.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...rdevices.ru,
        oxffffaa@...il.com, pv-drivers@...are.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] vsock/vmci: convert VMCI error code to
 -ENOMEM on receive

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:18:36PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>
>
>On 30.03.2023 23:13, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>> This adds conversion of VMCI specific error code to general -ENOMEM. It
>> is needed, because af_vsock.c passes error value returned from transport
>> to the user, which does not expect to get VMCI_ERROR_* values.
>
>@Stefano, I have some doubts about this commit message, as it says "... af_vsock.c
>passes error value returned from transport to the user ...", but this
>behaviour is implemented only in the next patch. Is it ok, if both patches
>are in a single patchset?

Yes indeed it is not clear. In my opinion we can do one of these 2
things:

1. Update the message, where we can say that this is a preparation patch
    for the next changes where af_vsock.c will directly return transport
    values to the user, so we need to return an errno.

2. Merge this patch and patch 3 in a single patch.

Both are fine for my point of view, take your choice ;-)

Thanks,
Stefano