netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] ipv4: remove get

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: <67ae1c7ba11bf_25279029419@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:23:23 -0500
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, 
 kuba@...nel.org, 
 edumazet@...gle.com, 
 dsahern@...nel.org, 
 horms@...nel.org, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/7] ipv4: remove get_rttos

Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 2/12/25 3:09 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> > 
> > Initialize the ip cookie tos field when initializing the cookie, in
> > ipcm_init_sk.
> > 
> > The existing code inverts the standard pattern for initializing cookie
> > fields. Default is to initialize the field from the sk, then possibly
> > overwrite that when parsing cmsgs (the unlikely case).
> > 
> > This field inverts that, setting the field to an illegal value and
> > after cmsg parsing checking whether the value is still illegal and
> > thus should be overridden.
> > 
> > Be careful to always apply mask INET_DSCP_MASK, as before.
> 
> I have a similar doubt here. I'm unsure we can change an established
> behavior.

This patch does not change behavior.

Does not intend to, at least.

> > v1->v2
> >   - limit INET_DSCP_MASK to routing
> 
> Minor nit, this should come after the '---' separator. Yep, it used to
> be the other way around, but we have less uAPI constraints here ;)

Okay. I have no preference. I thought the latest guidance was to have
it recorded. Is this something to clarify in maintainer-netdev.rst?