netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/5] netconsole: use netpoll_parse_ip_addr in local_ip

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: <20250723145400.GB1036606@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 15:54:00 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/5] netconsole: use netpoll_parse_ip_addr in
 local_ip_store

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 06:02:04AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Replace manual IP address parsing with a call to netpoll_parse_ip_addr
> in local_ip_store(), simplifying the code and reducing the chance of
> errors.
> 
> Also, remove the pr_err() if the user enters an invalid value in
> configfs entries. pr_err() is not the best way to alert user that the
> configuration is invalid.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>

My suggestion below not withstanding, this looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>

> ---
>  drivers/net/netconsole.c | 22 +++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/netconsole.c b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> index f2c2b8852c603..b24e423a60268 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/netconsole.c
> @@ -751,6 +751,7 @@ static ssize_t local_ip_store(struct config_item *item, const char *buf,
>  {
>  	struct netconsole_target *nt = to_target(item);
>  	ssize_t ret = -EINVAL;
> +	int ipv6;
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&dynamic_netconsole_mutex);
>  	if (nt->enabled) {
> @@ -759,23 +760,10 @@ static ssize_t local_ip_store(struct config_item *item, const char *buf,
>  		goto out_unlock;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (strnchr(buf, count, ':')) {
> -		const char *end;
> -
> -		if (in6_pton(buf, count, nt->np.local_ip.in6.s6_addr, -1, &end) > 0) {
> -			if (*end && *end != '\n') {
> -				pr_err("invalid IPv6 address at: <%c>\n", *end);
> -				goto out_unlock;
> -			}
> -			nt->np.ipv6 = true;
> -		} else
> -			goto out_unlock;
> -	} else {
> -		if (!nt->np.ipv6)
> -			nt->np.local_ip.ip = in_aton(buf);
> -		else
> -			goto out_unlock;
> -	}
> +	ipv6 = netpoll_parse_ip_addr(buf, &nt->np.local_ip);
> +	if (ipv6 == -1)
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	nt->np.ipv6 = ipv6;

I don't think this needs to block progress.
And if you disagree that is fine too.
But I would have expressed this as:

	nt->np.ipv6 = !!ipv6;

Because nt->np.ipv6 is a bool and ipv6 is an int.

Likewise for patch 5/5.

...