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: <a54dd426-3842-4c3b-8ad8-3e6bd59019dd@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:23:36 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: 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

On 2/13/25 5:23 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> 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.

Doh! I misread the comment and the code so that the patch inverted the
cmsg vs sockopt priority.

Reread more carefully, I'm fine with this patch.

>>> 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?

It's sort of a recurring topic, so I guess it would help.

Thanks,

Paolo