netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: return the right falback reason when prefix checks fail

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: <1cd92217-1926-4990-abae-dcdd2e87cfaa@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 21:15:35 +0200
From: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Alexandra Winter <wintera@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Karsten Graul <kgraul@...ux.ibm.com>, Jan Karcher <jaka@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>, Wen Gu <guwen@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/smc: return the right falback reason when prefix
 checks fail



On 12.10.23 15:05, Alexandra Winter wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12.10.23 14:37, Dust Li wrote:
>> In the smc_listen_work(), if smc_listen_prfx_check() failed,
>> the real reason: SMC_CLC_DECL_DIFFPREFIX was dropped, and
>> SMC_CLC_DECL_NOSMCDEV was returned.
>>
>> Althrough this is also kind of SMC_CLC_DECL_NOSMCDEV, but return
>> the real reason is much friendly for debugging.
>>
>> Fixes: e49300a6bf62 ("net/smc: add listen processing for SMC-Rv2")
>> Signed-off-by: Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>
> 
> As you point out the current code is not really wrong. So I am not sure,
> whether this should be a fix for net, or rather a debug improvement for
> net-next.
> The return code was not precise, and since we do have already a more 
appropriate return code to use. IMO, it was wrong. I'm for net.

Reviewed-by: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>