netdev - Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH net-next] udp_tunnel: Fix typo using netdev_WARN instead of netdev

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: <e022df33-8759-4fa5-a694-d0d16c51d575@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 19:15:57 +0530
From: ALOK TIWARI <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: dsahern@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
        kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH net-next] udp_tunnel: Fix typo using
 netdev_WARN instead of netdev_warn



On 9/4/2025 2:48 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 12:57:12PM -0700, Alok Tiwari wrote:
>> There is no condition being tested, so it should be netdev_warn,
>> not netdev_WARN. Using netdev_WARN here is a typo or misuse.
> 
> Hi Alok,
> 
> I agree that using netdev_warn() seems more appropriate.
> 
> But doesn't the difference between netdev_warn() and netdev_WARN()
> lie in the output they produce rather than testing of a condition
> (or not)?
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alok Tiwari <alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com>
> 
> ...

Thanks Simon, agreed, I understand your point.

since WARN() triggers backtrace and dumps the file name
it is not require here. The failure in udp_tunnel_nic_register()
should just be treated as an expected operation failure, not as a kernel bug

Should I send a v2 with an updated commit message
(remove "condition being tested"), or drop these changes?”


Thanks for your review.

Thanks,
Alok