netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 13/13] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Improve error message in gswip_port

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, 07 Jun 2024 15:51:19 +0200
From: Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com, hauke@...ke-m.de, andrew@...n.ch,
 f.fainelli@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/13] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Improve error
 message in gswip_port_fdb()

On 2024-06-07 13:41, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Martin Schiller wrote:
>> From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
>> 
>> Print the port which is not found to be part of a bridge so it's 
>> easier
>> to investigate the underlying issue.
> 
> Was there an actual issue which was investigated here? More details?

Well, there are probably still several problems with this driver. Martin
Blumenstingl is probably referring to the problem discussed in [1] and 
[2].

[1] https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/13200
[2] https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/13638

> 
>> Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl 
>> <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c 
>> b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
>> index 4bb894e75b81..69035598e8a4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
>> @@ -1377,7 +1377,8 @@ static int gswip_port_fdb(struct dsa_switch *ds, 
>> int port,
>>  	}
>> 
>>  	if (fid == -1) {
>> -		dev_err(priv->dev, "Port not part of a bridge\n");
>> +		dev_err(priv->dev,
>> +			"Port %d is not known to be part of bridge\n", port);
>>  		return -EINVAL;
>>  	}
> 
> Actually I would argue this is entirely confusing. There is an earlier
> check:
> 
> 	if (!bridge)
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 
> which did _not_ trigger if we're executing this. So the port _is_ a 
> part
> of a bridge. Just say that no FID is found for bridge %s 
> (bridge->name),
> which technically _is_ what happened.

Yes, you are right. I'll change that.