netdev - Re: [QUERY] mctp: getsockopt unknown option return code -EINVAL

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: <f5978c86-5271-4699-bb7d-92e3f2e2b9be@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 15:29:49 +0530
From: ALOK TIWARI <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>
To: Jeremy Kerr <jk@...econstruct.com.au>, matt@...econstruct.com.au,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [QUERY] mctp: getsockopt unknown option return code -EINVAL

On 9/1/2025 12:54 PM, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Hi Alok,
> 
>> Would it be ideal to return -ENOPROTOOPT instead of -EINVAL in
>> mctp_getsockopt() when an option is unrecognized?
>> This would match the behavior of mctp_setsockopt() and follow the
>> standard kernel socket API convention for unknown options.
> 
> Yes, I think this makes sense, and probably extended to the level !=
> SOL_MCTP checks too.
> 
> Is there a particular path you're looking at here?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Jeremy

Thanks Jeremy.

I was not looking at a specific path, I just noticed the inconsistency 
in the return codes between getsockopt and setsockopt.

Extending this to the level != SOL_MCTP case would also require changes 
in the mctp_setsockopt() API.
Would it be better to handle that in a separate patch? For now,
I can limit this change to mctp_getsockopt() as "returning -ENOPROTOOPT 
instead of -EINVAL".

Also, would it be fine if I send this patch to [net-next] without a 
Fixes tag?

Thanks,
Alok