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

Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2023 10:57:21 +0300
From:   Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
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 31.03.2023 10:12, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> 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 ;-)

Ok! Thanks for this!

Thanks, Arseniy

> 
> Thanks,
> Stefano
>