netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net/sched: sch_htb: use extack on errors messages

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: <20230417085251.6b031b1e@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 08:52:51 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:     Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net/sched: sch_htb: use extack on errors
 messages

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 10:06:36 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> There is no "rule" other than the LinuxWay(tm) i.e. people cutnpaste.

:-)

> It's not just on qdiscs that this inconsistency exists but also on
> filters and actions.
> Do we need a rule to prefer one over the other? _MOD() seems to
> provide more information - which is always useful.

People started adding _MOD() on every extack so I was pushing back 
a little lately. It will bloat the strings and makes the output between
parsing and hand coded checks different. Plus if we really want the
mod name, we should just make it the default and remove the non-mod
version.

The rule of thumb I had was that if the message comes from "core" of 
a family then _MOD() is unnecessary. In this case HTB is a one-of-many
implementations so _MOD() seems fine. Then again errors about parsing
TCA_HTB_* attrs are unlikely to come from something else than HTB..