netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Fix error code in __virtnet_get_hw

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: <1682873e-eb14-48e4-9ac6-c0a69ea62959@suswa.mountain>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 16:50:48 +0200
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Fix error code in
 __virtnet_get_hw_stats()

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 12:01:55PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 03:50:45PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > The virtnet_send_command_reply() function returns true on success or
> > false on failure.  The "ok" variable is true/false depending on whether
> > it succeeds or not.  It's up to the caller to translate the true/false
> > into -EINVAL on failure or zero for success.
> > 
> > The bug is that __virtnet_get_hw_stats() returns false for both
> > errors and success.  It's not a bug, but it is confusing that the caller
> > virtnet_get_hw_stats() uses an "ok" variable to store negative error
> > codes.
> 
> The bug is ... It's not a bug ....
> 
> I think what you are trying to say is that the error isn't
> really handled anyway, except for printing a warning,
> so it's not a big deal.
> 
> Right?
> 

No, I'm sorry, that was confusing.  The change to __virtnet_get_hw_stats()
is a bugfix but the change to virtnet_get_hw_stats() was not a bugfix.
I viewed this all as really one thing, because it's cleaning up the
error codes which happens to fix a bug.  It seems very related.  At the
same time, I can also see how people would disagree.

I'm traveling until May 23.  I can resend this.  Probably as two patches
for simpler review.

regards,
dan carpenter